Appeal No. 2001-0073
Application 08/966,894
reservoir and Erickson has some form of tube for fluid transfer
being made part of the fluid reservoir (Br11-12). Appellant
argues that "[t]he Examiner's statement that 'upon modification
of Erickson to utilize the luer-lock coupler of McAffer et al.,
the interior region would be devoid of ink supply tubing' is
therefore factually incorrect" (Br11).
The examiner states that the interior of the reservoir has
no ink supply tubing before the connection via couplers and
McAffer clearly shows that lower end of the tubing (cannula) 23
is not part of the container (vial) 67 and that appellants'
claimed invention is devoid of tubing only prior to connecting
with the fluid supply (EA6).
This reasoning is not persuasive. Both claims 22 and 26
require a "fitting molded into said top panel." The adaptor 21
in McAffer must be in place on the vial 67 to attempt to meet the
claim limitation. The female luer fitting 29 in McAffer
corresponds to the claimed "fitting molded into said top panel"
and, absent discussion by the examiner, it is assumed that the
cannula 23 corresponds to the claimed connecting tube. The
cannula 23 is fixed to the "fitting molded into said top panel,"
and not to the "second fitting" (claim 22) or "a mating luer-lock
fitting" (claim 26). The cannula 23 is always in the vial 67
when the adaptor 21 is in place (as it must be to meet the
limitation of a "fitting molded into said top panel") regardless
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007