Appeal No. 95-4246
Application 08/201,052
brief (Paper No. 28) and the reply brief (Paper No. 30).
Considering first the examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 18, 31, 34 and 35 as being unpatentable over Sharon in
view of McFee, the examiner has taken the following position:
These claims are met by Sharon ‘113 with the
exception of providing the barrel with an enlarged
contact surface including a solid face extending
continuously radially outward from the aperture of
the barrel; however, as Fee [sic, McFee] teaches
using an enlarged contact surface in the form of a
flange for contacting the surface of an area to be
treated to stabilize and assist in orienting a
surgical instrument[,] . . . providing Sharon ‘113,
particularly the embodiment of Fig. 11[,] with the
same in this manner for the benefits derived
therefrom would have been considered as obvious
modification. [final rejection, page 2]
Implicit in the above is the examiner’s position that the
modified Sharon device would correspond to the claimed
handpiece in all respects.
While we are not in complete agreement with the
examiner’s position as stated above, the rejection is 4
sustainable. Our reasons follow.
Each of the independent claims 18, 31 and 35 requires a
4We do not agree with the examiner’s implicit findings to
the extent they suggest that the independent claims on appeal
require the barrel to have an “enlarged” contact surface which
includes a “solid” face, and that Sharon lacks such features.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007