Appeal No. 2001-1399 Page 5
Application No. 09/227,819
The rejection of independent claim 1 as being anticipated by Landis therefore is not
sustained nor, it follows, is the like rejection of dependent claims 2-4.
Independent claim 6 is directed to a needle protection device comprising a collar
configured to fit to the hub of a vial from which a needle extends with the collar having
extending therefrom “gripper means for non-removably attaching said collar to said hub
once said collar is mated to said hub,” and a needle housing flexibly connected to the
collar and being pivotable into alignment with the vial to cover the needle. The reasoning
set forth above applies also to claim 6, and we will not sustain the rejection of claim 6 or of
claim 8, which depends therefrom.
The Rejection Under Section 103
Claims 5 and 7 stand rejected as being unpatentable over Landis in view of
Pyrozyk. Claims 5 and 7 add to the claims from which they depend the requirement that
the gripping means be a plurality of hook-like fingers that snap over the hub and remain
engaged with the hub while allowing the collar to be rotatable about the hub.
Considering the teachings of Landis in the light of Section 1031 does not alter our finding
that Landis fails to disclose or teach the subject matter recited in claims 1 and 6, from
which claims 5 and 7 depend, for it is our view that no suggestion exists which would have
1The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007