Ex parte MARTIN

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 29, 1997

08014682 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 29, 1997)

Application for patent filed February 8, 1993. 1
1
Paper No. 25
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte ROBIN MARTIN
______________
Appeal No. 96-0953
Application 08/014,6821
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before CALVERT, COHEN and MEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
COHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
1 through 19, all of the claims in the application.
Appeal No. 96-0953
Application 08/014,682
2
Appellant's invention pertains to a self-locking blood
collecting device. A basic understanding of the invention can be
derived from a reading of exemplary claim 17, a copy of which
appears in the "APPENDIX" of appellant's brief.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has relied upon
the references listed below:
Martin 5,201,708 Apr. 13, 1993
(filed Feb. 3, 1992)
Weibel WO 89/04141 May 18, 1989
(Published PCT Application)
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 1 through 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Weibel.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response
to the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer
(Paper No. 20), while the complete statement of appellant's
argument can be found in the brief (Paper No. 17).
OPINION
Appeal No. 96-0953
Application 08/014,682
3
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellant's specification and claims, the applied
references, and
the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
We cannot sustain the examiner's rejection under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103.
Independent claim 1 is drawn to a self-locking blood
collecting device comprising, inter alia, a needle guard provided
with an elongated alignment groove extending a distance inwardly
from a forwardmost end of the needle guard to allow alignment of
the needle guard in relation to a vein of a patient. Similarly,
independent claim 17 addresses a self-locking blood collecting
device
comprising, inter alia, a needle guard provided with an elongated
groove extending a distance inwardly from the forwardmost tip of
Appeal No. 96-0953
Application 08/014,682
4
the needle guard to allow alignment of the needle guard in
relation to a vein of a patient.
We understand the above limitations, read in light of
the underlying disclosure (specification, page 5), as requiring an
elongated alignment groove starting at the forwardmost end or tip
of the needle guard and extending a distance inwardly therefrom.
This reasonable understanding comports with the showing in the
drawing (Figures 2 through 4), as well as with appellant's point
of view on the matter (brief, page 5).
Turning to the applied prior art, considered as a whole,
we find an absence therein of an elongated alignment groove
starting at the forwardmost end or tip of a needle guard and
extending a distance inwardly therefrom, as well as a lack of any
suggestion therefor.
Accordingly, while we share the examiner's point of view
as to the combinability of the applied patents, a position not
disputed in the brief (page 5), we agree with appellant, as
indicated above, that the combination of the references relied
upon would not effect the claimed self-locking blood collecting
Appeal No. 96-0953
Application 08/014,682
5
device. The evidence of obviousness before us is simply devoid of
disclosure relative to the particularly claimed elongated
alignment groove. Accordingly, the rejection on appeal cannot be
sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JAMES M. MEISTER )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Appeal No. 96-0953
Application 08/014,682
6
Thomas S. Keaty
Keaty & Keaty
Suite 2140
World Trade Center
# 2 Canal Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Appeal No. 96-0953
Application 08/014,682
7
ICC/cam