Appeal No. 2003-1340 Page 4
Application No. 10/072,247
“considerably longer than it is wide.” Thus, concludes the appellant, a “rod” inherently is
solid, and therefore the disputed term is supported in the specification. The appellant
further directs attention to the fact that the drawings depict element 52 (the stylet “rod”)
as being solid. See Brief, pages 3 and 4.
For the reasons expressed by the appellant, we agree that this rejection is
misplaced, and we will not sustain it.
The Section 102 Rejection Based On Sanderson
It is the examiner’s conclusion that claims 1-5 are anticipated by Sanderson.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or
under the principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention.
See, for example, RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,
1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We find this not to be the case with regard
to claims 1-5, and therefore we will not sustain this rejection.
Sanderson discloses a surgical cannula for use in removing tissue in lipo-suction
surgery and the like, and not an endo-tracheal tube retainer. The Sanderson surgical
cannula comprises a hollow needle 10 which is attached via a first hollow handle
member 30 to a second hollow handle member 50, with a suction tube being attached
to the free (proximal) end of handle member 50. The distal end of hollow needle 10
terminates in an opening through which tissue can pass in response to the application
of suction. The needle terminates at its proximal end in an annular flange that is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007