Appeal No. 95-4246
Application 08/201,052
applied prior art. See LaBounty Manufacturing v.
International Trade Commission, 958 F.2d 1066, 1075, 22 USPQ2d
1025, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959,
177 USPQ 705, 706 (CCPA 1973); In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580,
152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); Ex parte Cordova, 10 USPQ2d
1949, 1950-51 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1987). In any event, the
modified Sharon handpiece reasonably appears to be fully
capable of functioning in the manner called for in the claims.
As to the claim requirement that the face of the
contacting wall “extend[s] continuously radially outward” from
the aperture to the periphery, McFee describes the flange of
protector 37 as being a “substantially radial” flange (page 1,
line 100), or a “radial” flange (page 2, line 78). Hence, the
tip member of Sharon’s Figure 11 embodiment modified in
accordance with McFee’s teachings likewise would extend
radially, at least for the portion thereof adjacent the
periphery, which is sufficient to satisfy the broadly worded
requirement of the independent claims in this regard. The
modified tip member of Sharon would also satisfy the
requirement of independent claim 34 calling for a contacting
-10-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007