Appeal No. 2004-0479
Application No. 09/780,864
and to catheters and other articles formed from the
polyurethane. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner
rejection of claim 19.
III. Whether the Rejection of Claim 20 Under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as Being Obvious over Cambron in View of Kitou
is Proper?
Appellants argue that Cambron fails to teach "wherein the
hub has a luer lock formation thereon" as recited in claim 20.
See pages 9 and 10 of the brief. Appellants argue that
because Cambron describes the hub 16 having a "female luer
end," the hub is a luer slip connection and not a luer lock
having a hub of a projection of sufficient size to engage a
complementary threaded coupling device. Page 10 of the brief.
We find that Cambron's teaching "the open female luer end
of hub 16" as described in col. 4, lines 45 and 46, reads on
Appellants' claimed limitation "wherein the hub has a luer
lock formation." Appellants' specification describes that
"the hub 42 has a luer lock formation 58 on a side thereof
opposing the catheter 50, and a first passage 60 therethrough"
in lines 8 and 9 on page 12 of the specification. More
importantly, Appellants' Figures 3-5 show that the luer lock
2222
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007