Appeal No. 1999-2774
Application 08/794,337
rejection of claims 7 through 9 and 14 through 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kee in view of Law
or Utterberg considered further in view of either Oreopoulos
or Rugheimer.
In the request, appellant urges that our decision
regarding the combination of Utterberg with Kee as applied to
independent claims 1, 22 and 23 is based on a mistaken
interpretation of the structural characteristics of the Luer-
Lok joint seen in Utterberg. More specifically, in contrast
to our observations on page 8 of our earlier decision that
Utterberg discloses “a loose, freely rotatable mounting of the
sleeves once the connector is past the threaded portion of the
luer lock or the tangs of the retention device (34a),”
appellant argues that it is well known that such a Luer-Lok
joint operates by jamming the frustoconical sealing surfaces
of the joint together to create a seal (as seen at 46 in Fig.
5B of Utterberg), and that rotation at the sealing interface
would be inconsistent with the proper functioning of a Luer-
Lok device. Having again reviewed the Utterberg reference in
light of appellant’s points of argument, we must agree with
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007