Appeal No. 1999-0712 Page 11
Application No. 08/748,669
such material is also positioned inside or "in" the coiled member or eyelet as recited in claim
42.7
Accordingly, we shall sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 42 and claims 46-48, 50
and 55 which stand or fall therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schatz
in view of Wolff and the examiner's rejection of claims 43-45, 56 and 57, which also stand or
fall with claim 42, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schatz in view of Wolff
and Samson.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 41-48 and 50-61 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
7We note, in fact, that the radiopaque material as disclosed by the appellants is affixed to the surface of
the eyelet by melting (specification, page 24) and, thus, might also be considered to be positioned "on" the eyelet.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007