Appeal No. 2000-0472
Application No. 08/868,536
arguments as to why none of the examiner's three
interpretations anticipates the quoted claim language. It is
unnecessary to restate those arguments here; suffice to say
that we are persuaded by them that Groshong does not disclose
a stylet body which is bent as recited in claim 7. Since
Groshong does not disclose every limitation recited in claim
7, it does not
anticipate. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (reference must disclose every
claimed limitation, explicitly or inherently, in order to
anticipate).
We therefore will not sustain the § 102(b) rejection of
claim 7, or of claims 8 to 11 and 16 dependent thereon.
The examiner has included claims 14 and 15 in the §
102(b) rejection, but it is not clear how he considers the
limitations of independent claim 14 to be readable on
Groshong. Claim 14 requires, inter alia, a threaded sleeve
rotatably carried on the tubular member for coupling with the
catheter, and Groshong does not disclose any such threaded
sleeve on tubular member 30 for coupling with catheter 10.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007