Appeal No. 2000-1934 Page 3
Application No. 08/779,420
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 26) for
the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections
and to the brief (Paper No. 25) for the appellants' arguments
thereagainst.2
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Rejection (1)
Independent claim 1 requires an elongate shaft which is
"sufficiently longitudinally flexible to be bendable along its
length, including its distal end, to a radius as small as
about 5/8 inch without kinking." Independent claim 14 recites
a step of advancing a flexible shaft into and through a tract
wound, the shaft being "sufficiently flexible to enable it to
bend through at least an angle of 90 at a radius at least aso
Appellants' "REPLY BRIEF" (Paper No. 27) has not been entered (see2
Paper No. 28).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007