Appeal 2007-1993
Application 10/277,432
1396 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.
Cir. 2006)).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has also
recognized the need for articulated reasoning in support of obviousness
rejections, rather than conclusory statements based on precedent-based
supposed per se rules. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1571, 37 USPQ2d
1127, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“[S]ection 103 requires a fact-intensive
comparison of the claimed process with the prior art rather than the
mechanical application of one or another per se rule.”). Thus, an
obviousness evaluation “requires that one compare the claim’s ‘subject
matter as a whole’ with the prior art ‘to which said subject matter pertains.’”
Id. at 1569, 37 USPQ2d at 1131 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103).
We do not agree with the Examiner that Richmond suggests the
device of claim 1, when the claim is viewed as a whole.
Richmond discloses “a needleless valve for use with IV components”
(Richmond, col. 1, l. 65). Richmond’s valve has a flexible occluding
element that, when deflected, allows fluid communication between the
container and the outside (id. at Figures 2A and 2B). Figure 2A shows
Richmond’s valve in the closed position, with the occluding element 54
blocking fluid communication between the two sides of the valve. As shown
in figure 2B, when an urging member 62 is pressed against the flexible
element 54, the flexible element 54 is deflected sufficiently to allow fluid
communication between the container and the outside.
Richmond’s valve may be deployed in devices having spikes for
perforating fluid containers (Richmond, Figure 28). Richmond also
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013