Appeal No. 2001-2073
Application No. 09/098,799
and on the backside of the cup (16) of Amoils, which structures
collectively define a diffuser for diffusing the flow of the
fluid exiting from said aperture (i.e., in appellant's words
(brief, page 12), that portion of the tool provided over the open
distal end of the tubular housing and which causes the fluid
exiting from the aperture (as defined above) to slow and exit out
the two openings (26) of Amoils).
Thus, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of both
claims 9 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Amoils, and
also the rejection of claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 18 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Amoils since those claims were not
argued separately.
Regarding the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 based on Graham, we observe that on page 14 of the brief
appellant concedes that Graham discloses a bore in the tubular
housing (A) of the vaginal syringe with a gauge larger than 32
gauge in diameter. Thus, appellant has conceded that the subject
matter of claim 8 on appeal lacks novelty over Graham.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, noting that anticipation or lack of
1313
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007