Appeal No. 2003-1340 Page 5
Application No. 10/072,247
accepted in first hollow handle means 30. The examiner has found that the first handle
means 30 and second handle means 50 comprise the claimed “connection adapter,”
and the hollow needle to be the “solid semi-rigid stylet rod.”
On the basis of his conclusion that the appellant’s disclosure does not support
the limitation that the “rod” recited in claim 1 is “solid,” the examiner finds Sanderson’s
needle 10 constitutes the required “solid semi-rigid stylet rod.” As we stated above, we
do not agree with the examiner that support is lacking for the claimed rod being solid,
and therefore we cannot accede to this finding. Thus, the rejection of claims 1-5 cannot
be sustained inasmuch as Sanderson fails to disclose or teach “solid semi-rigid stylet
rod.”
Furthermore, to use the device as disclosed, the distal end of the Sanderson
cannula is at the opening in the free end of the needle and the proximal end is at the
opening in the free end of the second handle means. This means that the taper shown
at 56 runs from the proximal end toward the distal end of the device, which is the
opposite of that required by claim 1. To support the examiner’s position, the Sanderson
device would have to be utilized backwards, that is, the needle used as the handle and
the handle as the connection adapter, which would, from our perspective, be viewed by
one of ordinary skill in the art, as an improper interpretation of the reference in that the
device then would be inoperable for its intended purpose. This is another reason why
the language of claim 1 cannot be read upon the structure disclosed by Sanderson. We
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007