Interference No. 103,950
along the cutter guide are inherent in the prior art
(Nardella’s claim 37). However, Nardella has failed to direct
us to evidence to prove this assertion. Nardella has not
established the obviousness of the subject matter of claim 9.
In regard to claim 10, Nardella states that it was well
known in the art to provide staple applying means complete
with staple pushers and staple forming means in an end face.
Nardella states that U.S. Patent No. 4,747,531 to Brinkerhoff
and U.S. Patent No. 4,671,279 to Hill disclose such end
staplers and their workings. While recognizing that claim 10
also recites that the applying means touches the target
tissue, Nardella dismisses this feature without comment.
Tsuruta argues that there are many differences between
claim 10 and Nardella’s claim 35 which were not discussed by
Nardella. We agree with Tsuruta that Nardella has a duty to
discuss all the differences between Nardella’s claim 35 and
Tsuruta’s claim 10.
In addition, we agree with Tsuruta that Nardella has
failed to provide analysis of why the subject matter of claim
10 would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art in
view of the teachings of the prior art. While Nardella argues
in the reply that the application of electrosurgical elements
-15-
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007