Appeal No. 2005-0777
Application No. 10/081,881
properly define the invention. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399,
1403, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974); see also In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673-74 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1, 6 and 8 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by the admitted prior art
(Figures 5-7, described on pages 1-4 of the specification).
We note that claim 2, and claims 3-5 dependent thereon,
contains the additional limitation that a bar is inserted within
the deformable tube. This limitation has not been described in
the specification as “conventional” or part of the admitted prior
art.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 CFR § 41.50(b) (effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg.
49960 (August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September
7, 2004)). 37 CFR § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered
final for judicial review."
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007