Appeal No. 2001-0547 Page 7
Application No. 08/689,400
provide such a feature on the proximal end of the Nicholas tubular body in view of the
teachings of Meador.
However, we differ with the examiner with regard to what elements of this claim
are missing from Nicholas. As we explained above with regard to the Section 102
rejection of claim 18, the presence of the handle on the proximal portion of the Nicholas
elongated tubular body causes the reference to fail to disclose or teach that the seal is
slidable along the entire length of the tubular body, a feature that is required in claim 1.
Moreover, to modify Nicholas to provide such a feature would necessitate removal of
the handle which would, from our perspective, render the Nicholas device unsuitable for
operating in the intended manner, thus presenting a disincentive to the artisan to make
such a change.
With regard to combining the references, Nicholas discloses a luer lock on the
proximal end of the elongated tubular body for the purpose of attaching a syringe to
inject dye or other substances into the passage in this body (column 9, lines 14-18).
There is nothing in the reference to indicate that the luer lock restricts the passage of
fluid in either direction, and thus it would appear to allow fluid to be infused or removed
through the central passage in the tubular body. Meador discloses a device for flushing
the uterus of a sow. The device comprises an elongated tubular member having a
squeeze ball 15 for pumping fluid from the proximal to the distal end of the tubular
member, and a pair of one-way valves 18 and 19 to prevent back-flow of fluids from the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007