Appeal No. 95-4462
Application 08/190,950
wherein said periphery of said contacting wall has a
diameter which is at least twice the diameter of said aperture
in order to provide greater surface area over which to
disperse the pressure imposed by said handpiece on the heart
wall and to facilitate perpendicular alignment of the
handpiece with respect to the heart wall.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner in
support of the rejections are:4
Pollock 1,135,465 Apr. 13,
1915
Sharon et al. (Sharon) 3,865,113 Feb. 11,
1975
Vassiliadis et al. (Vassiliadis) 4,940,411 Jul. 10,
1990
Claims 1-5 and 8-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Sharon in view of Pollock. Claims
6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sharon in view of Pollock and further in
view of Vassiliadis.5
4The examiner inadvertently failed to include the
Vassiliadis reference in the list of references relied upon on
page 3 of the answer.
5These are new rejections made for the first time in the
examiner’s answer. In each instance, the examiner no longer
includes the McFee reference (incorrectly denominated “Fee” in
the final rejection) in support of the rejection. Since the
rejections in the final rejection relying in part on McFee
have not been restated in the examiner’s answer, we presume
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007