Appeal No. 1999-0076
Application No. 08/348,699
Appellants’ disclosed invention pertains to a surgical
device. A basic understanding of the invention can be derived
from a reading of exemplary claims 1, 7, and 9, copies of
which appear in the appendix to the brief (Paper No. 14).
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
documents listed below:
Glick et al 4,008,303 Feb. 15,
1977
(Glick)
Korthoff 4,534,352 Aug. 13,
1985
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 1 through 7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Korthoff in view of Glick.
The full text of the examiner’s rejection and response to
the argument presented by appellants appears in the answer
(Paper No. 15), while the complete statement of appellants’
argument can be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos.
14 and 16).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007