Appeal No. 2003-1401
Application No. 08/814,401
has carefully considered appellant's specification and claims,2
the applied teachings,3 and the respective viewpoints of
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
make the determinations which follow.
Anticipation
We do not sustain any of the examiner's anticipation
rejections.
Independent claims 1 and 8 address a treatment catheter
insert for use within a treatment catheter comprising: inter
alia, a) an internal segment; b) an external segment; and c) a
first connector positioned on at least one of the internal and
2 It appears to us that the claimed first and second bores
together effect a --continuous-- rather than a "contiguous" main
bore (claims 1 and 8). This matter should be addressed during
any further prosecution before the examiner.
3 In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each document for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, this panel of the Board has taken into account not
only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw
from the disclosure. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826,
159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007