Ex Parte Ziman et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201311342620 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/342,620 01/31/2006 Lynn A. Ziman 0100/0190 2493 21395 7590 09/25/2013 LOUIS WOO LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO 717 NORTH FAYETTE STREET ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER BOSWORTH, KAMI A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3767 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/25/2013 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte LYNN A. ZIMAN and STEVEN HUU NGUYEN ____________________ Appeal 2010-012141 Application 11/342,620 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before KEN B. BARRETT, BENJAMIN D.M. WOOD, and REMY J. VANOPHEM, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Lynn A. Ziman and Steven Huu Nguyen (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-9, 11-15, 17, and 19-23. An oral hearing was held on December 3, 2012. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2010-012141 Application 11/342,620 2 THE INVENTION Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 21. Apparatus comprising: a fluid store or a fluid line having a conventional receptacle end with a conventional configuration adapted to mate with a needle hub of a needle assembly with a conventional complementary receptacle end; a needle assembly including a needle hub at its receptacle end and a needle extending from its closed end, the receptacle end of said needle hub having a given configuration that prevents the receptacle end of said needle hub to mate with the conventional receptacle end of said fluid store or fluid line having the conventional configuration; and an adapter that is not a part of said fluid store or fluid line having a first end with a conventional complementary receptacle end matable with the conventional receptacle end of conventional fluid stores or fluid lines and a second end with a configuration complementary to said given configuration of the receptacle end of the needle hub of said needle assembly so that the second end of said adapter is matable with the receptacle end of the needle hub of said needle assembly, said adapter including a through passage to enable fluid to pass between said fluid store or fluid line and said needle assembly when said adapter is mated to said fluid store or fluid line and connected to said needle assembly, said adapter further having a locking mechanism to prevent the removal of said fluid store or fluid line from said adapter once said fluid store or fluid line and said adapter have been mated to each other even if an attempt is made to separate said adapter and fluid store or fluid line from each other. Appeal 2010-012141 Application 11/342,620 3 THE REJECTIONS The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 3-5, 8, 11-13, 17, 19, and 21-231 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Segal (US 2004/0201216 A1, published Oct. 14, 2004); 2. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Segal; 3. Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Segal and Cohn (US 4,940,458, issued July 10, 1990); and 4. Claims 9, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Segal and Sinko (US 4,453,927, issued June 12, 1984). OPINION The Anticipation Rejection Claims 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 17, and 21-23 Appellants argue rejected claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 17, and 21-23 as a group. App. Br. 10, 12. We select independent claim 21 as representative, and claims 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 17, 22, and 23 stand or fall with claim 21. Claim 21 calls for, in pertinent part, a fluid store/line having a conventional end, a needle assembly including a needle and a needle hub having a configuration that does not mate with a conventional end, and an adapter that has respective ends that mate with the conventional end of the 1 The Examiner explains that claim 7 was incorrectly listed in the Final Rejection as subject to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and clarifies that claim 7 is only subject to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Ans. 3. Appeal 2010-012141 Application 11/342,620 4 fluid store/line and the needle hub. Segal discloses, inter alia, a two-part connector having one end that is adapted to mate with, e.g., a standard fitting and another end adapted to mate with, e.g., a needle, where the two connector parts have complementary but non-standard configurations that allow them to mate to each other. See Segal, para. [0030], fig. 8D; Ans. 4-5, 14; App. Br. 11. Appellants argue that Segal lacks the claimed adapter. App. Br. 11. Appellants’ argument appears premised on the assertion that Segal’s two- part connector does not correspond to the claimed “adapter.” App. Br. 11- 12; Reply Br. 3. This argument is unconvincing because it does not address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. The Examiner found that one part of Segal’s connector, element 1ʹ, corresponds to the claimed adapter, and that the other part of Segal’s connector, element 3, along with the needle not shown in Figure 8D, corresponds to the claimed needle assembly. Ans. 5. Appellants also argue that Segal’s element 3 is not the claimed needle assembly. App. Br. 11. This argument again appears to be premised on the mistaken assertion that the two parts of Segal’s connector must be coupled together and considered as a single part in order to be compared to the claimed adapter. Id. This argument is unpersuasive as it again fails to address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner, which treats the two parts as separate structures. Appellants do not point out a structural distinction between the claimed needle assembly and Segal’s element 3 with a needle attached thereto. Cf. Hrg. Tr. (Dec. 3, 2012) at 10:4-14; 12:4-12 (agreeing that Segal’s element 3 with a conventional needle attached would Appeal 2010-012141 Application 11/342,620 5 have a needle hub); id. at 11:4-12 (in the art, “[y]ou can have a needle assembly as long as it’s a needle.”). We are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 as anticipated by Segal. As such, we affirm the rejection of claim 21 and of claims 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 17, 22 and 23 which fall therewith. Claims 5, 13, and 19 Appellants argue rejected claims 5, 13, and 19 as a group. App. Br. 12. We select claim 5 as representative. Claim 5 depends from claim 21 and calls for “a shroud fitted about an adapter core.” Appellants argue that the components of Segal found to correspond to the claimed shroud and adapter core (elements 560 and 561, respectively) constitute only half of Segal’s connector. App. Br. 12. Thus, Appellants’ line of argument is the same unpersuasive one as used against the rejection of claim 21, and fails to address the rejection as articulated. We sustain the rejection of claims 5, 13, and 19. The obviousness rejections Appellants do not offer additional arguments concerning the remaining rejections. App. Br. 13 (stating that each claim subject to an obviousness rejection stands or falls with the corresponding independent claim). Because we sustain the anticipation rejection for the reasons set forth above, we accordingly also sustain the rejection of claim 7 as being unpatentable over Segal, the rejection of claims 6 and 14 as being unpatentable over Segal and Cohn, and the rejection of claims 9, 15, and 20 as being unpatentable over Segal and Sinko. Appeal 2010-012141 Application 11/342,620 6 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 3-9, 11-15, 17, and 19- 23 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation