Appeal No. 1997-2646
Application 08/103,089
and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Bille
and L’Esperance, Jr.
Appellants have indicated that claims 1-16 and 18-26
stand or fall together while claim 17 forms a separate group.
Rather than reiterate all arguments of Appellants and
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answers for the
respective details thereof.2
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-26 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. In addition, we will not
sustain the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or
of claims 1-16 and 18-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1-26 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, the Examiner first asserts
that if claims are read in light of the specification, they
“inherently require ablation.” The Examiner goes on to assert
2See the briefs filed May 8, 1995, December 18, 1995, and
April 5, 1999, as well as answers mailed October 13, 1995,
March 21, 1996, and August 17, 2000. A communication was
mailed July 16, 1996 informing Appellant that amended claims
and reply brief filed December 18, 1995 would be entered.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007