Page 10
Appeal No. 1999-1814
Application No. 08/688,108
column 5, lines 9-14) to permit insertion of the blade into the cannula. Consequently, the degree of
stretching of the incision is determined solely by the cannula diameter and not by the particular insertion
orientation of the cannula or the blade. In any event, we can find no teaching or suggestion in Chow's
disclosure of the inventive method of a step of rotating the blade substantially 90 degrees from an
orientation where a width-defining blade surface is contiguous with the epidermis to an orientation
where a thickness-defining blade surface is adjacent the epidermis or a step of spreading blade portions
as recited in the claims. With respect to the rotating step, the examiner's statement (final rejection, page
2) that "the term manipulating includes the motion of rotation" is of no assistance in this regard.
For the foregoing reasons, we shall not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 13, 14, 16 and
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chow.
As for the examiner's rejection of claims 15, 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chow in view of Agee, we have reviewed the teachings of Agee but find nothing
therein which overcomes the above-noted deficiencies of Chow. It follows then that we also shall not
sustain this rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007