Appeal No. 95-3598
Application 08/125,671
art that the applicant had invented the subject matter later
claimed. See In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1520, 222 USPQ 369,
372 (Fed. Cir. 1984) cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1209 (1985).
In this instance, we are in agreement with the exami-
ner that the disclosure as originally filed would not convey to
those skilled in the art that appellants had invented the sub-
ject matter now claimed. Independent claim 1 sets forth a
cauterization means including a laser-transmitting optical fiber
that is at least partially connected to the laparoscopic
instrument at the distal end portion and, as added in the
amendment filed August 1, 1994 (Paper No. 3), further indicates
that the laser-transmitting optical fiber is connected to the
instrument "independently of motions of said fingers in response
to said actuator means." A similar limitation is set forth in
independent claim 11 regarding a fluid transfer means being at
least partially connected to the laparoscopic instrument at the
distal end portion "independently of motions of said fingers in
response to said actuator means."
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007