Appeal No. 96-2631
Application No. 08/177,616
distance" as recited in claim 14, and (4) "triggering the safety
penetrating instrument to move the safety penetrating instrument
to a protective state where the penetrating member is protected
as soon as a trigger member of the safety penetrating instrument
has moved proximally a distance corresponding to a desired
predetermined depth of penetration by the safety penetrating
instrument into the tissue" as recited in claim 22. We agree
with the appellant's argument that while the trigger sleeve 20 of
Allen is movable a proximal distance from the position shown in
Figure 3-C to the position shown in Figure 3-D, such proximal
distance does not correspond to the thickness of the anatomical
cavity wall as recited in claims 1, 6 and 14. We also agree with
the appellant's argument that the retraction of Allen's
penetrating member 24 does not occur when/upon/as soon as the
trigger sleeve 20 of Allen is moved the proximal distance from
the position shown in Figure 3-C to the position shown in Figure
3-D as recited in claims 1, 6, 14 and 22. We therefore conclude
that claims 1, 6, 14 and 22 would not have been obvious over
Allen.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of
appealed claims 1, 6, 14 and 22, or claims 2 through 5, 7 through
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007