Appeal No. 2001-2669
Application 09/043,950
with a reduced risk of cracking. The examiner’s position that
Crossman meets these claim limitations rests on the proposition
that Crossman’s hub 12 and depth adjuster 15 together constitute
a hub as recited in claim 1, and that the portion of Crossman’s
needle 11 projecting beyond the cylindrical end of the adjuster
constitutes an injection part projecting axially from the center
portion of the hub, which injection part would have a length of 4
mm in the case of the adjuster shown in phantom (chain) lines in
Crossman’s Figure 2. This analysis is unsound, however, for at
least two reasons.
To begin with, Crossman’s description of hub 12 and adjuster
15 as separate elements belies any notion that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would view the adjuster as part of the
hub. The examiner’s interpretation to the contrary runs counter
to the express teachings of the reference. The injection part of
the needle 11 projecting axially from the center portion of the
hub 12 has a length of 12.5 mm, not 4-6 mm as called for in claim
1.
Furthermore, even if Crossman’s adjuster 15 were considered
to be a component of the hub, the length of the part of the
needle 11 projecting axially from the hub center portion which
secures the needle would still be 12.5 mm, not 4 mm as asserted
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007