Appeal No. 96-2192
Application 08/306,856
surgical device. Therefore, the concept of a claimed blocking
element or device being a part of a surgical device was
clearly set forth in original claim 17. See In re Anderson,
471 F.2d 1237, 1244,
176 USPQ 331, 336 (CCPA 1973).
As to the present version of the invention set forth in
independent claims 30 and 31, there is no dispute that the
record reveals that a blocking element was disclosed in each
of Figures 1 and 2 set forth in the specification as the
respective first and second embodiments. These include
specific discussions with respect to element 40 in Figure 1
and element 74 in Figure 2 functioning as blocking elements in
these respective embodiments.
On the other hand, the examiner asserts at the top of
page 6 of the Answer that the structure of the overall device
in the Figure 3 or third embodiment does not include a
blocking element per se to inhibit future use of the surgical
instrument specifically disclosed in Figure 3f. Appellant’s
Brief may be read such as to infer the same and our study of
the Figure 3 embodiment leads us to agree with the examiner’s
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007