Appeal 2007-1993
Application 10/277,432
discloses that such spikes “can be advanced into the conventional port 24
until the spike 22 pierces the membrane within the port 24 . . . establish[ing]
a path for fluid flow through the port 24” (id. at col. 7, ll. 36-38). We agree
with the Examiner that this configuration, in which the spike is advanced
into the port, constitutes “a perforator movably attached to the port for
piercing the film,” as recited in claim 1.
Richmond also discloses (referring to Figure 10) that “each valve 352,
354 can have a respective tamper-resistant cap 356, 358 which is configured
to engage a luer fitting,” and that these removable caps can be tamper
resistant (id. at col. 9, ll. 14-20). We agree with the Examiner that either of
these caps can be considered to be “a tab releasably attached to the port
wherein detachment of the tab permits the perforator to pierce the film,” as
recited in claim 1.
However, claim 1 requires both the movable perforator and the
detachable tab to be “attached to the port.” That is, the perforator and
detachable tab must be attached to the port at the same time. In contrast, for
Richmond’s spike to gain access to the port, the detachable tab must be
removed from the port. Thus, to use these features of the device according
to Richmond’s teachings, either the perforator would be attached to the port,
or the tab would be attached to the port, but the perforator and tab would
never be attached to the port at the same time, as required by claim 1.
The Examiner argues that because Richmond’s spike is capable of
piercing the container’s film, Richmond meets claim 1’s requirement for a
perforator (Answer 5-6). The Examiner argues that Adolf discloses that an
access port can be thermally bonded to a fluid bag, and that “[t]herefore, the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013