Appeal No. 1999-2788
Application No. 08/910,469
the distalmost end point of the device as seen in Figure 1 of
the application" (answer, page 4), we note that this is not
the language of appellant's claim 1 on appeal and thus is of
no moment, since the pointed tip (24) seen in Figure 1 of
appellant's drawings is clearly part of the "outermost distal
end" of the blade body as claim 1 on appeal requires. By
contrast, the pointed tip relied upon by the examiner in the
ultrasonic cutting blade of Davison (Fig. 8) clearly is not
located at the outermost distal end of the blade body.
As for the examiner's rejection of the claims on appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Davison, we note that even if
it is conceded that the surgical blade therein includes a
pointed tip at the sharpened recessed cutting portion (62),
such does not in any way change the fact that Davison does not
disclose, teach or suggest the cutting blade structure called
for in appellant's claim 1 on appeal and in the claims which
depend therefrom, since Davison clearly does not have a
recessed cutting portion which "terminates at a pointed tip at
an outermost distal end of said body" as required in
appellant's independent claim 1 on appeal. Accordingly, we
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007