Appeal No. 97-1871
Application 08/325,847
suggest that sharp edges along the entire needle are subject to "radiusing" or reduction.
We consider the examiner's position to be correct. There would appear to be little practical
difference between the "needles" recited in appellant's claims and the "needle blanks" recited in the
claims of the Samsel patent, and in particular, the "polished needle blanks" recited in claims 5 to 15 of
the patent. Moreover, claims 22 to 30 only claim the treatment of "partially finished" needles. For the
reasons stated by the examiner, supra, this rejection will be sustained.
Rejections Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the following new grounds of rejection.
(a) Claims 1 to 3, 8 to 11, 16, 20, 21, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Stametz in view of McIntosh. Stametz discloses a method of producing blunt tip
surgical needles (including curved needles) by tumbling sharp, tapered tip needles 10 with an abrasive
40. The abrasive may include a liquid (col. 2, line 48), the abrasive medium may be porcelain, etc.,
spheres (col. 5, lines 11 to 21), and the needles may be 420 stainless steel (col. 5, line 37). As for the
ratio range recited in claim 1, McIntosh teaches that blunt surgical needles should have a percentage of
bluntness (diameter of curvature) of 25 to 62% of the diameter of the needle (col. 9, lines 12 to 19).
This is the same as a ratio of tip radius to needle diameter of 0.125 to 0.31, which embraces the range
recited in claim 1. Also, McIntosh teaches the use of needle diameters of 0.026 to 0.050 inches and tip
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007