Appeal No. 2004-1945 Page 6
Application No. 09/524,213
Appellant argues (brief, p. 13) that (1) claim 34 requires the nonliquid
pharmaceutical be introduced from an open end opposite from the outlet, after which
the open end is sealed; and (2) Farris does not disclose this limitation and accordingly
claim 34 is not anticipated by Farris.
Appellant argues (brief, p. 13) that claims 41 to 47 are not anticipated by Farris
since Farris' system does not include a filtered needle.
Our decision
Claim 48
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claim 48
recites "an ampoule having a lyophilized pharmaceutical aseptically located therewith;
the pharmaceutical characterized as being nonliquid." Clearly, Farris' vial is not
disclosed as having a lyophilized pharmaceutical aseptically located therewith; the
pharmaceutical characterized as being nonliquid. As such, all the limitations of claim 48
are not disclosed by Farris.
Claims 24 and 31
We sustain the rejection of claims 24 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007