Interference No. 103,950
However, Nardella does not discuss why it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include
these features in the surgical device of the prior art
(Nardella’s claim 37). The conclusory statement that these
features are obvious modifications is insufficient to meet
Nardella’s burden of establishing obviousness with respect to
claim 7.
With respect to claim 8, Nardella argues that the
recitations in claim 8 of a operation section which comprises
a connecting section, an operating section for opening and
closing the anvil, and cartridge and drive section for driving
the cutter are inherent features in the prior art device
(Nardella’s claim 37) and that these features are disclosed in
Green ‘715. Nardella has not directed us to evidence that
would establish that these features are inherent. While
Nardella directs our attention to Green ‘715, Nardella has not
established why a person of ordinary skill in the art would be
motivated to include the features of Green ‘715 in the
surgical device defined by Nardella’s claim 37.
In regard to claim 9, Nardella argues that the
recitations in claim 9 of a drive means and staple applying
means each including flexible portions which are bendable
-14-
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007