Appeal No. 2006-1603
Application No. 10/646,675
REJECTIONS
Claims 18 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), or, in the alternative,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being unpatentable over Vidal.
Claims 18 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being unpatentable
over Johnson in view of Metcalf.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the
examiner's answer (mailed January 31, 2006) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant's brief (filed October 26, 2005) and reply brief (filed
March 6, 2006) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations that follow.
Claim Construction
The examiner and the appellant have differing views on 2 of the limitations in
claim 18.
1. The appellant argues (Brief, p. 12) that the limitation of an obturator for
use in endoscopic surgery has patentable weight as a structural limitation
of the shield-less obturator, when contrasted with the obturator of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007