Appeal No. 2002-1916
Application 09/332,772
Further, it has been held that mere dupli-
cation of the essential working parts of a
device involves only routine skill in the
art. St. Regia Paper Co. v. Bemis Co.,
193 USPQ 8.
Like appellants, we find no basis in the teachings of
Donadio or otherwise articulated by the examiner that would have
rendered obvious the catheter kit set forth in appellants’
claims 21 and 22 on appeal. In that regard, we agree with
appellants’ points as set forth on pages 9-11 of their brief and
we adopt them as our own. The examiner has clearly engaged in a
prohibited hindsight reconstruction of appellants’ claimed
catheter kit based on appellants’ own teachings and disclosure.
Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of claims 21 and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will not be sustained.
To summarize, the examiner's rejection of claims 10
through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Donadio has been sustained; as have the rejections of claims 15
through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Donadio alone or in
combination with Loeffler, Osborn or Fuqua. The examiner’s
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007