Appeal No. 97-0111
Application 08/139,251
Claims 1 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Everett in view of Chisman and
McGregor. According to the examiner,
Samuel [sic, Everett] discloses a cold-
working method for manufacturing a surgical
needle. Chisman teaches particular lengths
may be cut from a blank material and the
desired geometrical shapes may be formed.
McGregor et al disclose a needle shaped
before treating it. See column 6, lines 50-
56. It would have been within the purview of
one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time of applicants’ invention to form Samuel
[sic] needle by first bending it then cold-
working treatment (final rejection, page 2).
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full explanation
of the above-noted rejection and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding the rejection,
we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No. 8, mailed
July 21, 1995) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 11, mailed
March 19, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 10, filed
December 26, 1995) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007