Appeal No. 2001-0547 Page 2
Application No. 08/689,400
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a device for infusing fluid into the uterine
cavity. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
claim 1, which appears in the appendix to the Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Meador 4,071,027 Jan. 31, 1978
Harris 4,430,076 Feb. 7, 1984
Weber 5,147,315 Sep. 15, 1992
Swor 5,364,375 Nov. 15, 1994
Nicholas 5,431,662 Jul. 11, 1995
The examiner has set forth the following rejections:
(1) Claims 1-6, 8-12 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as containing
subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to
enable one of ordinary skill in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most
nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
(2) Claims 18, 19, 22, 23 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Nicholas.
(3) Claims 1, 5, 6 and 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on the basis of Nicholas in view of
Meador.
(4) Claims 1, 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on the basis of Swor in view of Meador.
(5) Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on the basis of Swor in view of Meador.
(6) Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on the basis of Nicholas.
(7) Claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on the basis of Nicholas in view of Swor.
(8) Claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on the basis of Nicholas in view of Weber.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007