Appeal No. 96-2192
Application 08/306,856
statement. However, as noted by appellant in the Brief, the
discussion at the top of page 15 of the original
specification, lines 1 through 7, indicates a general teaching
that a counter device-blocking element according to the
invention may be included in a surgical instrument. This
broad or generalized statement at this page of the
specification may be interpreted to include the concept of
applying it to the Figure 3 embodiment. Therefore, to the
extent the examiner's position in the Answer is based upon the
written description portion of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the rejection
must be reversed. To the extent recited in independent claims
30 and 31 on appeal of a monitoring device being “capable of
blocking operation of a surgical instrument,” each of the
respective embodiments 1 through 3 of the disclosed invention
either expressly or by inference taught the concept of a
blocking element of some kind functioning in association with
a surgical device.
On the other hand, it appears that the examiner's basic
underlying issue with respect to the present claims on appeal
relates to a surgical instrument being inadequately disclosed
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007