Appeal 2007-1993
Application 10/277,432
port disclosed by Richmond may incorporate not only a secondary
membrane, but also the film of the container, depending on how the port is
attached to the container” (id. at 6). The Examiner concludes that these
teachings demonstrate that “the Richmond device has a perforator that is
capable of piercing the film of the container, thereby meeting the limitations
of the claims” (id. at 7).
We are not persuaded by this rationale. The Examiner has not
adequately explained how Richmond teaches a device having a detachable
tab and a movable perforator, both attached to the access port of a container
at the same time, as recited in claim 1. Moreover, the Examiner has not
adequately explained how Adolf’s teaching of a thermally bonded access
port incorporating the container’s film remedies this shortcoming in
Richmond. We therefore do not agree with the Examiner that Richmond
would have suggested a device having the features recited in claim 1.
We reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 45-49
based on Richmond.
4. OBVIOUSNESS -- CLAIM 50
Claim 50 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Richmond and Foran (Answer 4-5).
Claim 50 depends from claim 49, which depends from claim 1. Claim
50, through claim 49, adds to claim 1 the limitation that the perforator has a
tri-slope beveled tip. The Examiner applies Foran to meet this limitation
(Answer 5). As discussed above, we do not agree with the Examiner that
Richmond teaches or suggests a device that meets the limitations of claim 1.
Foran’s disclosure of beveled hypodermic needles does not remedy
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013