Ex parte WALSH - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1999-2624                                         Page 2         
          Application No. 08/561,658                                                  


          by an amendment filed October 9, 1998 (Paper No. 12),                       
          subsequent to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 11).   No other1                        
          claims remain pending in this application.                                  
                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               The appellant's invention relates to a device which is                 
          particularly useful in the intubation of the lacrimal ducts                 
          (specification, page 1).  A substantially correct copy of the               
          claims on appeal is contained in the supplemental appendix                  
          filed January 10, 2000 (Paper No. 15).2                                     
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Crawford et al. (Crawford)    4,380,239                Apr. 19,             
          1983                                                                        
          Fugoso et al. (Fugoso)        5,545,138                Aug. 13,             
          1996                                                                        
          (filed Feb. 28,                                                             
          1994)     The following rejection is before us for review.                  



               1According to the examiner (Paper No. 13, mailed November 18, 1998),   
          this amendment has been entered and new claims 19 and 20 stand allowed.     
          Claims 1-10 and 13-18 stand rejected.                                       
               2The copy of claim 1 in the supplemental appendix is inconsistent with 
          claim 1 of record in that, in line 5, "distal" has been omitted before "end."
          Additionally, claims 19 and 20 should have been omitted from the supplemental
          appendix, since they stand allowed and, thus, are not involved in this appeal.







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007