Ex Parte O - Page 6


            Appeal No. 2006-1603                                                                        
            Application No. 10/646,675                                                                  

                  We note that the examiner asserted an alternate rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103       
            (Answer p. 4). The examiner argued (Answer p. 10) that one of ordinary skill in the art     
            would have been motivated to form an obturator as a monolithic structure so as to make      
            what is separate, integral, which makes for ease of assembly and use.  The appellant        
            has not argued or provided any evidence that one of ordinary skill would not have had       
            such a motivation to form an obturator as a monolithic structure and therefore the          
            examiner’s statement of essentially notoriously well known construction techniques is       
            sufficient evidence to meet the burden of establishing this element of the claim 18         
            subject matter1.                                                                            


                  The appellant argues (Brief p. 11) that Vidal fails to show the claim limitation of   
            an orientation indicator located near the proximal end which enables a user to              
            determine by touch the relative position of the tip at the distal end.  The examiner        
            responds (Answer p. 4 and 8) that defining a raised surface at the proximal end is          
            manifestly capable of functioning as an orientation indicator, and enables a user to        
            determine by touch the relative position of the tip at the distal end.  To this, the appellant
            responds (Reply Brief p. 3) that the difference in diameters is substantially the same for  
            all points around the circumference of the shaft and handle and the only information that   
            can be obtained by touch from this difference in diameters is that a change in diameter     
            exists near the most proximal part of the obturator.                                        

                                                                                                        
            1 We note that Metcalf, applied in the other rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in this appeal, is issued to the
            same assignee, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, with one inventor, i.e. Gerald L. Metcalf,
            in common with Vidal.  Fig. 4 of Metcalf shows a monolithic obturator for use in endoscopic surgery,
            supporting the examiner’s assertion that monolithic obturators would be within the capacity of one of
            ordinary skill in the art.                                                                  

                                                   6                                                    



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007