Appeal No. 96-2081
Application 08/125,892
all of the claims pending in this application.
We REVERSE and REMAND.
BACKGROUND
The claims on appeal are drawn to methods of manipulating
tissue and packing during an endoscopically performed
operative procedure and to a method of performing an
endoscopic operative procedure. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 24
which appears on pages 18 and 19 of appellant's main brief.
The reference applied in the final rejection is:
Lee 682,090 Sep. 3, 1901
The following rejection is before us for review:
Claims 24 through 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Lee.2
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
2Claims 24 through 30 were also rejected in the final rejection on the
ground of obviousness-type double patenting. However, subsequent to the final
rejection, a terminal disclaimer was filed (Paper No. 9). Since the
obviousness-type double patenting rejection has not been repeated in the
examiner's answer, we understand that the rejection has been overcome by the
terminal disclaimer.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007