Appeal No. 1999-0512
Application No. 08/701,979
perspective this document does not fairly teach or suggest a
rigid cup since it is clearly speculative as to whether the
silicone tube in this particular instance is rigid. 5
Since the proffered evidence would not have been
suggestive of the subject matter of claim 6, the rejection
thereof must be reversed.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
This application is remanded to the examiner to address
the matters specified below and to take action deemed
appropriate.
1. As pointed out in footnote No. 1, in claim 1, line 10,
“distal” should apparently be --proximal--, in light of the
underlying disclosure.
5Of interest is the Savin et al. patent (U.S. Patent No.
4,950,227) referenced by appellants on page 2 of the present
application and cited in appellants’ Information Disclosure
Statement of December 30, 1996 (Paper No. 4). The Savin et
al. patent teaches non-rigid silicone sleeves 18, 20 that
expand and contract (Figs. 1 and 2).
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007