Interference No. 103,950
burden of establishing obviousness of claim 12 for the reasons
stated above for claim 10.
Nardella argues that claims 13 and 15 recite no features
that are not also recited in claims 10 and 12. Nardella does
not supply the suggestion for modification of the prior art
which we found missing in Nardella’s argument above for claim
10. Therefore, Nardella has not met its burden of
establishing obviousness with respect to claims 13 and 15.
In regard to claim 16, Nardella argues that the
Vittenburger article discloses a cutting, cauterizing and
stapling device for stomach resection and bowel anastomosis
that includes the provision of a tying means. Nardella
concludes that the subject matter of claim 16 is obvious over
the prior art (Nardella’s claim 35). Nardella has not met its
burden of establishing obviousness with respect to claim 16
because Nardella has not established why a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the
device of the prior art (Nardella’s claim 35) so as to include
a tying means.
Nardella has not specifically argued the provisions of
claim 14 and as such has failed to establish obviousness with
respect to claim 14.
-17-
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007