Appeal No. 2000-0798
Application No. 08/410,852
Fig. 4 and col. 2, line 60, to col. 3, line 2). In view of
either of Eaton or linden, it would have been obvious to
employ molding as the "other suitable means" referred to by
Rubricuis at col. 2, line 13, for attahing the metal scalpal
blade 1 to plastic handle 4, noting that Rubricuis states at
col. 2, lines 38 and 39, tht plastic can be "easily injection
molded." The use of molding to attach Rubricuis’ handle 4 to
the end of blade 1 would have been the obvious selection of a
known attachment method, and would have been particularly
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art by Eaton’s
disclosure that such a method of attachment is strong, rigid
and inexpensive (col. 4, lines 36 to 40).
With regard to claims 2 and 9, the handle of the
Rubricuis scalpel, beings polypropylene, would inherently be
nondegradable in body fluids, as appellant discloses at page
6, lines 25 and 26 of the specification.
As for claims 4 and 11, one of ordinary skill would
obviously select a polypropylene for the handle of the
Rubricuis device which would resist the autoclave
temperatures; seee Hamas’s disclosure at col. 5, last two
paragraphs, of the desirability of using plastics having a UL
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007