Appeal No. 2001-0547 Page 9
Application No. 08/689,400
For the reasons provided in the preceding two paragraphs, it is our conclusion
that the combined teachings of Nicholas and Meador fail to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in independent claim 1, and we
therefore will not sustain this rejection of claim 1 or, it follows, of claims 5, 6 and 8-11,
which depend therefrom.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 stand rejected as being unpatentable over Swor in view of
Meador. As was the case with Nicholas, the examiner has taken the position that the
primary reference discloses all of the subject matter recited in claim 1 except for the
one-way valve, which would have been obvious in view of Meador. Swor discloses an
elongated tubular body 48 having a central passage through which fluids may be
delivered to the uterine cervix. A slidable seal 30 is mounted on the tubular body and it
appears to be movable over the entire length of the tubular body of the embodiment
shown in Figures 1-3, as is required by claim 1. A luer lock 60 is installed on the
proximal end of the tubular body so that a syringe 70 can be used to inject fluid into the
central passage (column 3, lines 51-61). As was the case with the other prior art
rejection of claim 1, the examiner has failed to set forth the suggestion which would
have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Swor device by replacing
the luer lock with a one-way valve, and our own analysis has failed to locate support for
such action. We also point out that the positioning of a syringe in the luer lock to inject
fluids, or the installation of a cap on the luer lock (Figure 2), would preclude fluid from
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007