Ex parte HANSEN

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 22, 1998

08110958 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 22, 1998)

Application for patent filed August 24, 1993.1
1
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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte BERND HANSEN

_____________
Appeal No. 95-2580
Application 08/110,9581
______________
HEARD: October 13, 1998
_______________
Before CALVERT, FRANKFORT and STAAB, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FRANKFORT, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 95-2580
Application 08/110,958
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's
refusal to allow claims 1 through 3, 5 through 7 and 9 through
14 as amended subsequent to the final rejection in a paper
filed November 3, 1994 (Paper No. 7). Claims 1 through 3, 5
through 7 and 9 through 14 are all of the claims remaining in
this appli-cation. Claims 4 and 8 have been canceled.
Appellant’s invention relates to an ampule made of
plastic for containing a liquid to be removed from the ampule
by a hypodermic syringe with a conical member at one end
thereof to be introduced into the ampule. It is of importance
to appellant (1) that the inside wall of the ampule neck have
at least one longitudinal passage therein so as to allow inlet
of air into the ampule body when liquid is removed from the
ampule body via the syringe and (2) that said at least one
longitudinal passage be spaced from the longitudinal middle
plane of the ampule defined by the separation plane of the
Appeal No. 95-2580
Application 08/110,958
3
mold in which the ampule is formed. Independent claims 1 and
10 are representative of the subject matter on appeal and a
copy of those claims is appended to this decision.
The prior art references of record relied upon by
the examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Juhn 4,641,663 Feb. 10,
1987
Rose et al. (Rose) 4,979,630 Dec. 25,
1990
Hansen 5,046,627 Sept. 10,
1991
Claims 1 through 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 12 through 14
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hansen in view of Rose.
Claims 7 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Rose and Juhn.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement
of the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding those rejec-
Appeal No. 95-2580
Application 08/110,958
4
tions, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
11, mailed February 24, 1995) for the examiner's reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No.
10, filed January 23, 1995) and reply brief (Paper No. 12,
filed March 13, 1995) for appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
given careful consideration to appellant’s specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the re-
spective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we have made the determina-
tions which follow.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims
1 through 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 12 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Rose, we
note that Hansen discloses an ampule like that set forth in
Appeal No. 95-2580
Application 08/110,958
5
independent claim 1 on appeal, except that the exact location
of the longi- tudinal passages (111) on the inside wall of the
neck portion (106) therein (Figures 4 and 5) is not specified
as being “spaced from said longitudinal middle plane” of the
ampule defined by the separation plane of the mold in which
the ampule is formed, as set forth in appellant’s claim 1.
Hansen is silent concerning the exact location of the one or
more longitudinal grooves or passages to be formed in the
inside wall of the neck portion (106) or in the annular bead
(9) of the neck portion seen in Figure 3 of the patent (see
col. 4, lines 21-23).
Rose, like Hansen and appellant, discloses a plastic
ampule for use with a hypodermic syringe wherein the neck of
the ampule “may be of any shape suitable for mating with the
head of a syringe” (col. 4, lines 39-40). In addition, Rose
also dis- closes the use of vacuum-relief means in the form of
one or more grooves or channels formed in the inside wall of
the ampule neck that is mateable with the head of the syringe.
At column 3, lines 1-20, of Rose it is noted that
Appeal No. 95-2580
Application 08/110,958
6
[i]n one embodiment, the neck is pro-
vided with two diametrically opposed
grooves, running directly into the ampoule.
As the liquid is taken up, air enters via
the grooves to replace the displaced volume
of liquid. While the liquid is being drawn
up, there is a natural tendency for the
greater external pressure to force air in,
thus preventing escape of the contents.
This effect is augmented by the effects of
surface tension which will usually prevent
escape of the liquid even when there is no
pressure differential.
For ease of manufacture, it may be
preferable to provide the channels by
appropriate shaping of the neck. Thus, for
example, to provide two channels, the neck
cross-section can be made oval, the larger
diameter providing the channels and the
smaller diameter gripping the syringe head.
Other configurations are equally possible,
such as a generally rounded triangular
cross-section to provide 3 channels, or a
square cross-section for 4 channels,
although two channels are generally
preferred.

Thus, Rose specifically discloses the use of three or four
venting grooves/channels in the neck of the ampule and, for
ease of manufacture, notes that it may be preferable to
provide such channels by appropriate shaping of the neck, as
may be seen in Figures 9A-9C of Rose.
Appeal No. 95-2580
Application 08/110,958
7
Like the examiner, we consider that the collective
teachings of the applied references to Hansen and Rose would
have been suggestive of the ampule defined in claim 1 on
appeal, especially when three or four venting grooves/channels
are provided in the inside wall of the ampule neck, as
suggested in both Hansen and Rose. Both Hansen and Rose make
reference to “one or more” longitudinal channels or grooves
being provided in the inside wall of the neck of the ampule
for venting purposes, with Rose specifically depicting
possible arrangements of three or four channels in the neck
and a preferable neck shape allowing ease of manufacturing of
such multiple grooves/channels. Thus, when the ampule seen in
Figures 1-2 of Hansen is provided with grooves as in Figures
4-5 thereof, but with three or four grooves being provided
therein as suggested in Rose, at least one of the
grooves/channels will be “spaced from said longitudinal middle
plane” of the ampule defined by the separation plane of the
mold in which the ampule is formed.
Appeal No. 95-2580
Application 08/110,958
8
Contrary to appellant’s arguments (brief, pages 9-
10), we do not see that the teachings of Hansen and Rose with
regard to providing multiple grooves/channels in the neck of
the ampule of either Hansen or Rose are limited to the
particular neck shapes seen in Figures 9B and 9C of Rose.
These shapes are merely set forth as being a preferable way to
provide for ease of manufacturing of these multiple
groove/channel arrangements, and are by no means limiting with
regard to the overall teachings of the Rose patent concerning
the use of multiple grooves/channels in the neck of the
ampule, that is, where the multiple grooves are formed
directly in the neck of the ampule as generally seen and
exemplified by Figures 3 and 3A of Rose.
Moreover, even if we accept appellant’s position
(brief, page 10) that the only obvious modification of the
Hansen ampule in view of the Rose patent would be a
modification of the Hansen ampule to provide the rectangular
or square cross section of the Rose patent to provide the four
channels (e.g., as a
Appeal No. 95-2580
Application 08/110,958
9
replacement for the cylindrical section 106 of Hansen Fig. 4),
we are of the opinion that this modification of the Hansen
ampule would result in an ampule like that set forth in
appellant’s claim 1 on appeal, wherein at least one, if not
all, of the four
grooves/channels would be “spaced from said longitudinal
middle plane” of the ampule defined by the separation plane of
the mold in which the ampule is formed. In this regard, note
appellant’s argument on page 13 of the brief re: claim 2,
wherein appellant urges that the combination of Hansen and
Rose would result in passages being located at 45 degree
angles to the longitudinal middle plane.
Regarding dependent claims 12 through 14 on appeal,
we note that Figures 1 and 2 of the Hansen patent appear to be
identical to Figures 1 and 2 of the present application with
respect to the external appearance of the depicted ampules,
and thus the Hansen patent clearly includes the planar flange
of appellant’s claim 12 and an arrangement thereof which
circum- scribes the ampule body and neck as in claims 13 and
Appeal No. 95-2580
Application 08/110,958
10
14 on appeal, at least to the same extent that appellant’s
marking/ flange does in Figures 1 and 2 of the present
application.
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 12 through 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Hansen and Rose.
We next look to the examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 2 and 3, and of independent claim 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of
Rose. Claims 2 and 10 each require that the first
longitudinal passage formed in the inside wall of the neck of
the ampule be spaced from the longitudinal middle plane of the
ampule and located “in a plane perpendicular to said
longitudinal middle plane.” Claim 3 sets forth a second
longitudinal passage/groove located diametrically opposite the
first longitudinal passage and requires that the first and
second passages define “a plane forming a 90 degree angle with
said longitudinal middle plane.” We find nothing in the
Appeal No. 95-2580
Application 08/110,958
11
collective teachings of Hansen and Rose which teaches or
fairly suggests such arrangements of the grooves therein.
This particular orientation of the longitudinal
passages/grooves in appellant’s ampule goes directly to the
particular problem being solved by appellant concerning the
need for more precise control of the shape and dimensions of
the passages during the blow
molding process (specification, pages 2-3). Nothing in the
applied patents addresses appellant’s problem and we see
nothing therein which would have fairly suggested the recited
orientation of the grooves/passages as set forth in claims 2,
3 and 10 on appeal. Accordingly, the examiner's rejections of
claims 2,
3 and 10, and the claims which depend therefrom, will not be
sustained.
We have reviewed the patent to Juhn applied by the
examiner against dependent claims 7 and 11, but we find
Appeal No. 95-2580
Application 08/110,958
12
nothing therein which would provide that which we have
indicated above to be lacking in the basic combination of
Hansen and Rose.
As should be apparent from the foregoing, we have
affirmed the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 12 through
14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in
view Rose, but we have reversed the examiner’s rejections of
claims 2, 3, 5 through 7, 9, 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The decision of the examiner is, accordingly, affirmed-in-
part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
con- nection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR §
1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Appeal No. 95-2580
Application 08/110,958
13
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF
PATENT
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge )
psb
Appeal No. 95-2580
Application 08/110,958
14
Roylance, Abrams, Berdo & Goodman
1225 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-2680
Appeal No. 95-2580
Application 08/110,958
- A1 -
APPENDIX
1. An ampule made of plastic for a liquid to be
removed from the ampule by a hypodermic syringe with a conical
member at one end thereof to be introduced into the ampule,
comprising:
an ampule body extending along a longitudinal axis
and having a marking thereon defining a longitudinal middle
plane coinciding with a mold separation plane and with said
longi- tudinal axis; and
a neck extending along said axis from one axial end
of said body, said neck having an inside wall for receiving
the conical member, said inside wall having a first
longitudinal passage for allowing air to pass into said ampule
body between the conical member and said inside wall during
removal of liquid from said ampule body, said first
longitudinal passage being spaced from said longitudinal
middle plane, said first longi- tudinal passage having a shape
and dimensions to form means for only allowing air to pass
therethrough, but preventing liquid from passing therethrough,
when the conical member is fully inserted in said neck.
10. An ampule made of plastic for a liquid to be
removed from the ampule by a hypodermic syringe with a conical
member at one end thereof to be introduced into the ampule,
comprising:
an ampule body extending along a longitudinal axis
and having a marking thereon defining a longitudinal middle
plane coinciding with a mold separation plane and with said
longi- tudinal axis; and
a neck extending along said axis from one axial end
of said body, said neck having an inside wall for receiving
the conical member, said inside wall having a first
longitudinal passage for allowing air to pass into said ampule
body between the conical member and said inside wall during
removal of liquid from said ampule body, said first
Appeal No. 95-2580
Application 08/110,958
- A2 -
longitudinal passage being spaced from and located in a plane
perpendicular to said longi- tudinal middle plane, said first
longitudinal passage having a
shape and dimensions to form means for only allowing air to
pass therethrough, but preventing liquid from passing
therethrough, when the conical member is fully inserted in
said neck, said inside wall of said neck including a radially
inwardly projecting annular bead, said first longitudinal
passage being formed by an interruption in said bead, said
neck including an outer surface with an annular groove
laterally adjacent said bead, said annular groove having
interruptions aligned with said interruptions in said bead.