Appeal No. 96-2271
Application 07/995,047
It is our opinion that the subject matter recited in claim 1
is anticipated by Sugarbaker, and we therefore will sustain the
rejection of claim 1 on that basis.
Claim 2 adds to claim 1 the requirement that the second
catching means be "in the form of a plurality of claws." We
agree with the appellants that the Sugarbaker needles are not
claws within the definition established by the appellants'
specification, and we therefore will not sustain the Section 102
rejection of claim 2. Nor, it follows, will we sustain the
rejection of claim 6, which depends from claim 2.
Dependent claim 7 adds to claim 1 the qualification that the
outer part be "disk-shaped." We do not find this to be the case
in Sugarbaker, wherein the outer part has the shape of a half of
a sphere. The rejection of claim 7, and further dependent claim
8, therefore is not sustained.
The second rejection of claim 1 is that it is anticipated by
Zeman. However, while Zeman discloses tissue catching means on
the outer part of the device, it fails to disclose the required
"second means for catching" on the inner part. We do not
subscribe to the examiner's hypothesis that this shortcoming is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007