Appeal No. 1998-2831 Page 4
Application No. 08/541,013
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Holmes in view of Moll.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 25,
mailed February 4, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 21,
filed February 20, 1997) for the appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification,
drawings and claims, to the applied prior art references, and1
1It is our view that the appellants' drawings are not the
model of clarity needed to assist one in understanding the
claimed invention. In fact, it would appear to us that the
drawings are not in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.83(a) since the
drawings do not show the interrelationship of the locking
means and the latching means as set forth in claim 6 (i.e.,
the position where the latching means engages the locking
means to retain the locking means in its second position until
the axial movement of the inner cannula rearward relative to
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007