Ex Parte Yow et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 11, 2016

13287043 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/287,043 11/01/2011
80236 7590 07113/2016
McDermott Will & Emery LLP
The McDermott Building
500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
D. Gregory Yow
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
080625-0070 5355
EXAMINER
DRIGGERS, GWENDOLYN YVONNE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
mweipdocket@mwe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte D. GREGORY YOW and JONATHAN WALBORN
Appeal 2014-006387 1,2
Application 13/287,043
Technology Center 3600
Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 11 and 24--30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Specification ("Spec.," filed Nov. 1,
2011), Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Sept. 12, 2013), and Reply Brief
("Reply Br.," filed May 7, 2014), as well as the Examiner's Answer
("Answer," mailed Mar. 7, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, "[t]he real party in interest ... is
CareFusion 303, Inc." Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2014-006387
Application 13/287,043
According to Appellants, their invention "relate[ s J to a medical
connection device, and more particularly, to a male and female connection
device, which can be used in conjunction with fluid administration, such as
intravenous fluid administration." Spec. i-f 1. Independent claim 11 is the
only independent claim under appeal. We reproduce the independent claim,
below, as representative of the appealed claims.
11. A connection device comprising:
a male connector with a distal end and a proximal end and
comprising a first tube pocket configured to accept a tube at the
proximal end and a plurality of prongs at the distal end, the
plurality of prongs each having an opening at a distal end that is
in fluid communication with the first tube pocket; and
a female connector with a distal end and a proximal end
and comprising a second tube pocket configured to accept a tube
at the distal end and a cavity comprising a plurality of internal
grooves configured to matingly engage the plurality of prongs of
the male connector at the proximal end, the plurality of grooves
each having an opening at a distal end that is in fluid
communication with the second tube pocket.
Appeal Br., Claims App.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claim 11under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Cameron (US 5,059, 170, iss. Oct. 22, 1991 ).
The Examiner rejects claims 24--26 and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Cameron and Mendels (US 2005/0267445 Al,
pub. Dec. 1, 2005).
The Examiner rejects claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cameron and Nates (US 5,123,840, iss. June 23, 1992).
See Answer 2-5.
2
Appeal2014-006387
Application 13/287,043
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 11, from which each of the remaining claims
depends, recites the following:
A connection device comprising ...
a male connector with a distal end and a proximal end and
comprising a first tube pocket configured to accept a tube at the
proximal end and a plurality of prongs at the distal end, the
plurality of prongs each having an opening at a distal end that is
in fluid communication with the first tube pocket.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphases added). The Examiner determines that
Cameron's two lumens 58 collectively teach the claimed first tube pocket,
and Cameron's two end portions 56 teach the claimed plurality of prongs.
See, e.g., Answer 2, 6-8. Appellants argue that the Examiner errs because
Cameron's two lumens 58 do not teach the first tube pocket as claimed. See,
e.g., Appeal Br. 10-12; see also, e.g., Reply Br. 4---6.
More specifically, the Examiner determines that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claimed first tube pocket includes "a
receptacle" that may be "divided into two portions by a partition," or "a
single pocket [that] is divided into multiple compartments," and that
Cameron's adapter 50, which includes two lumens 58, may be characterized
as such a receptacle or pocket. Answer 7 (internal quotations omitted).
Appellants argue that the Examiner's interpretation is unreasonably broad,
and that Cameron teaches multiple lumens in fluid communication with
different end portions rather than teaching a tube pocket in fluid
communication with multiple prongs. See Reply Br. 5-6, Appeal Br. 11-12.
Based on our review, we conclude that the Examiner's interpretation is
unreasonably broad.
3
Appeal2014-006387
Application 13/287,043
As shown and described by Appellants, the fluid communication
between first tube pocket 46 and each of prongs 44 permits fluid flowing
into the tube pocket to flow through any or all of the prongs. See, e.g.,
Figs. 8-10, Spec. i-f 39. Thus, we conclude that consistent with Appellants'
Specification, the limitation "the plurality of prongs each ... in fluid
communication with the first tube pocket" requires that fluid flowing into
the tube pocket may flow through any of the prongs. This does not appear to
occur in Cameron, inasmuch as each of Cameron's lumens 5 8 appears to be
in fluid communication with only one of end portions 56.
Based on the above interpretation of the claim, we conclude that the
Examiner does not establish, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that
Cameron teaches "the plurality of prongs each ... in fluid communication
with the first tube pocket" as required by claim 11. Thus, we do not sustain
the anticipation rejection of claim 11. Inasmuch as the Examiner does not
establish that any other reference remedies the deficiency in the rejection of
claim 11, we also do not sustain any of the obviousness rejections of the
remaining claims.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 24--30.
REVERSED
4