Page 7
Appeal No. 1999-1814
Application No. 08/688,108
For the foregoing reasons, we shall not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 13 and 14
under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The obviousness rejections
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims 13, 14, 16 and 18, we note that these claims
require, inter alia, the steps of rotating the closed blade portions substantially 90 degrees which brings a
thickness-defining surface of the blade portions adjacent the epidermis and subsequently spreading the
blade portions to create a volume beneath the epidermis accessible through the incision for surgical
purposes. The appellant argues that Chow neither discloses nor suggests these steps and, thus, does
not render obvious the subject matter of the claims (brief, page 8).
Chow discloses a trigger finger release surgical method wherein the surgeon makes an incision I
into the palm of a patient's hand and inserts a hollow cannula 1 into the incision through a sheath E
surrounding a flexor tendon using a holder 6 to grasp the cannula. The cannula has a slot 2, as shown in
Figure 7B, along its entire length. Once the cannula has been inserted such that both ends 1a, 1b
extend out from the palm as shown in Figure 8, the surgeon inserts an arthroscope 9 into one end 1b of
the cannula and pushes it forward until it is adjacent the site of a constriction. Next, the surgeon inserts
a curved or flexible surgical knife 11 into the opposite end 1a of the cannula and pushes it forward until
it is immediately beneath the portion of the sheath E to be cut to relieve the constriction and release the
trigger finger. The surgeon may use a holder similar to holder 6 to grasp and manipulate the shank 11a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007