Appeal No. 2000-0323 Page 8
Application No. 08/608,920
For the reasons set forth above, we find the appellant's
argument (brief, p. 4) unpersuasive that the original
application and in particular Figures 15 and 17 would
reasonably convey to one skilled in the art the above-noted
limitation from claim 15. In addition, we note that since
Figures 15 and 17 are not drawn to scale, the original
disclosure does not support the appellant's characterization
of the introducer sheath as being "relatively thin walled" and
the characterization of the dilator as being "relatively
thick." In our view, it is not possible to determine the
relative wall thickness of the introducer sheath and dilator.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 15 to 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, is affirmed.
The anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 6, 8 to
11 and 14 to 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as
set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007