Appeal No. 95-3582
Application 08/179,419
being the case, we will not sustain either the rejection of
(1) claims 21 and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (2) claims 22-25, 27-29 and 31-34 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the reference to Wismer.
Turning to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims
21-25 as being unpatentable over Horie in view of Honkanen and
claims 26-34 as being unpatentable over Horie in view of
Honkanen and Raiken, each of these rejections is bottomed on
the examiner’s view that to include
the Honkanen et al. annular flange 35 on the Horie
et al. tubular body (T or 1) in order to hold the
tubular body more securely in place as described in
col 4, lines 26-31 of Honkanen et al. would have
been obvious. The Honkanen et al. annular flange 35
is broadly considered to be disc-shaped. Assuming
arguendo that it is not disc-shaped, it would have
been obvious to simply make the flange (which is
described as a rib or ridge) thinner in order to be
better secured in the body. [Answer, pages 3 and 4.]
We cannot agree with the examiner that the undulating
thickened portions 35 on the wall of Honkanen’s cannula (which
are stated in line 36 of column 3 to be circumferential ribs
or ridges) can fairly be construed to a “disc-shaped annular
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007