Appeal No. 1998-2183
Application No. 08/529,195
respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner. As a4
consequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
We cannot sustain any of the examiner's rejections of
appellants' claims for the reasons addressed below. Our
focus, infra, will be upon the content of independent claims
13 and 24.
Each of independent claims 13 and 24 is drawn to a
prefillable, low-particle, sterile, single use syringe for the
injection of preparations having a filling volume of less than
5 ml with the syringe comprising, inter alia, a syringe body
formed of plastic, with a filling volume within a syringe
4On pages 9 and 19 of the main brief (Paper No. 22),
appellants refer to claimed wall thickness of 500 Fm as a
separate feature. In light of the argument presented, it is
not clear whether appellants view claim 13 as requiring a
syringe cylinder wall thickness of 500 Fm. Based upon our
reading of claim 13 and the underlying specification (page
12), it appears to us that the wall thickness of claim 13 is
simply part of the standard for the measurement of desired
water vapor permeability, i.e., less than 0.08 g/m x d) 2
relative to a wall thickness of 500 Fm. This matter should be
resolved during any further prosecution before the examiner.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007