Appeal No. 2004-1945 Page 9
Application No. 09/524,213
Claim 34
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claim 34
requires the nonliquid pharmaceutical be introduced from an open end opposite from
the outlet, after which the open end is sealed. Clearly, Farris' vial does not disclose this
limitation.2 As such, all the limitations of claim 34 are not disclosed by Farris.
Claims 41 to 47
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 41 to 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Claims 41 to 47 recite that the system includes a filtered needle. Clearly, Farris' vial is
not disclosed as being used in a system with a filtered needle. As such, all the
limitations of claims 41 to 47 are not disclosed by Farris.3
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 24 to 33 and 35 to
38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed and the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 34 and 41 to 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
2 The examiner did not respond to the appellant's argument concerning claim 34.
3 While Farris does disclose that a filtered needle has been used in prior systems (see column 1,
lines 35-45), Farris does not teach that a filtered needle is used with his vial 10.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007