Appeal No. 2001-1399 Page 3
Application No. 09/227,819
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The Rejection Under Section 102
Independent claims 1 and 6 stand rejected as being anticipated by Landis.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, either
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed
invention. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed.
Cir. 1994) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
We find that not to be the case here. Our reasoning follows.
Claim 1 is directed to a needle protection device comprising a vial having a needle
hub mated at one end and a needle extending away from the vial, and a needle housing
having extending therefrom a collar configured to fit to said hub and “at least one gripper
means for gripping said needle hub so that said collar is non-removably attached to said
hub once it is fitted to said hub,” wherein the housing is hingedly connected to the collar so
as to be pivotable into alignment with the longitudinal axis of the needle for covering the
needle.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007