Appeal No. 2001-0547 Page 11
Application No. 08/689,400
in Nicholas with regard to the elements recited in claim 18, which we previously
discussed in the Section 102 rejection. In this regard, while in the Swor device the seal
is slidable over the entire length of the tubular body, as we pointed out above, to so
modify Nicholas would necessitate removal of the handle, which would not be in
keeping with its operation. The rejection of claim 21 is not sustained.
With regard to claim 24, which also depends from claim 18, Weber fails to
overcome the aforementioned problems with Nicholas regarding the limitations of claim
18, and this rejection cannot be sustained. The same situation leads to the same
conclusion with regard to claim 25, which also depends from claim 18 and stands
rejected on the basis of Nicholas and Harris.
Claims 27 and 28 each stand separately rejected as being unpatentable over
Nicholas. These claims depend from claim 18, and the rejections are not sustained for
the same reasons as were expressed above with regard to the rejection of claim 20,
which was rejected on the same basis.
Independent claims 12 and 17 each stand separately rejected as being
unpatentable over Nicholas in view of Meador. We discussed these references above
with regard to the like rejection of claim 1 et al.. Claim 12 contains the requirement that
the seal be slidable over the entire length of the tubular body and that there be a one-
way valve at the proximal end of the tubular member, and claim 17 contains those
features plus the limitation that the seal have a neck on its distal end. As we found
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007