Appeal No. 98-2779
Application 08/496,604
obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58 (BPAI 1985), aff’d.
mem., 795 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir 1986).
Thus, for the above reasons, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Since
no separate argument has been made by appellant regarding
dependent claim 2, we consider that claim 2 will fall with
claim 1.
Appellant’s arguments in the brief and reply brief
directed to the feature of the invention relating to the use
of a rat tooth (10) at the distal end of the jaw portion of
the clamp are not relevant to independent claim 1, since no
such recitation appears in claim 1. Likewise, those arguments
are not relevant to dependent claim 2 which also has no such
feature recited therein. However, given that appellant has
argued this feature in both the brief and reply brief, we will
treat it. We first note that the examiner has addressed this
aspect of the claimed subject matter (e.g., claims 3 through
13) by relying on the teachings of English, which shows a
surgical clamp that includes a rat tooth structure (17, 19) at
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007