Appeal No. 2002-0910 Page 3
Application No. 09/229,855
operative surface of the ultrasonic transducer in a direction
toward the wound.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references in rejecting the
appealed claims:
Fox 4,787,888 Nov. 29, 1988
Crowley 5,630,837 May 20, 1997
Watanabe et al. (Watanabe) 5,690,608 Nov. 25, 1997
Claims 1, 8 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Fox.
Claims 3-7, 11 and 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fox in view of Watanabe.
Claims 3-7, 11 and 13-17 stand alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fox in view of Crowley.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 29) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 28 and 30) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007