Appeal No. 2000-1934 Page 7
Application No. 08/779,420
from claims 1 and 14. Therefore, we cannot sustain rejection
(1).
Rejection (2)
The examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5, 8 and 9 as being
anticipated by Muto. Independent claim 8 recites, inter alia,
that the shaft is sufficiently flexible to enable it to bend
through at least an angle of 90 without any substantial dropo
in the stagnation pressure of the emitted liquid. The
examiner's sole basis for concluding that Muto's catheter
inherently meets the flexibility limitations of independent
claims 1 and 8 is that it is disclosed as being made of PVC
(col. 5, l. 52). The examiner's position in this regard is
not well taken for the very same reasons discussed above with
regard to rejection (1) and we discern no other teaching in
Muto which would lead us to conclude that Muto's catheter
meets the flexibility limitations of claims 1 and 8, as well
as claims 2, 3, 5 and 9 which depend therefrom. Accordingly,
we will not sustain rejection (2).
Rejection (3)
Independent claim 10 recites a tract wound irrigation tip
comprising a shaft being between four and sixteen inches long,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007