Page 3
Appeal No. 1999-1814
Application No. 08/688,108
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed claims
are:
Agee et al. (Agee) 4,962,770 Oct. 16, 1990
Chow 5,353,812 Oct. 11, 1994
The following rejections are before us for review.
1. Claims 13-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, because, according to the
examiner, the specification, while enabling for a method to carpal tunnel surgery, does not reasonably
provide enablement for surgery on other portions of the body and, thus, is not enabling for the full scope
of the claims.
2. Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being3
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which appellant
regards as the invention.
3. Claims 13, 14, 16 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Chow.
3In view of the examiner's inclusion of claim 14 in this rejection in the final rejection (Paper No. 6,
page 3), the examiner's omission of claim 14 in this rejection in the answer (Paper No. 11) is presumed to have been
an inadvertent error. In any event, in light of our treatment of this rejection, infra, our interpretation does not
prejudice appellant.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007