Appeal No. 95-0423
Application 07/696,859
to be a reference to “the hole” in the membrane, such that the
claim language simply requires that the shunt be displaced
coaxially into the hole. In that the shunt 21 of Ritch can
likewise be said to move coaxially into the hole formed by the
cannula in the membrane 18, it is our view that this
requirement also does not serve to distinguish over Ritch.
Accordingly, as argued, we will sustain the § 102 rejection of
claim 43 based on Ritch.
Claims 44 and 46-48, which depend from claim 43, have not
been separately argued by appellant. We will therefore also
sustain the rejection of these claims as being anticipated by
Ritch. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525,
1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
We shall not sustain the rejection of claim 45 as being
anticipated by Ritch.
Claim 45 depends from claim 43 and additionally requires
that the axially displacing step of the base claim “is
effected in a straight line.” Notwithstanding that the shunt
of Ritch may translate axially until it reaches the cam
surface 27, it cannot be fairly said that the displacing of
Ritch’s shunt is “effected in a straight line,” as called for
-15-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007