Appeal No. 2000-2029
Application 09/012,530
Appellant’s invention relates to a dilator for a cannula
assembly (claim 6) and to a cannula assembly including such a
dilator telescopically received in the lumen of the cannula
(claim 1). Independent claims 1 and 6 are representative of the
subject matter on appeal and a copy of those claims can be found
in the Appendix to appellant’s brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Toye et al. (Toye) 4,978,334 Dec. 18, 1990
Fonger et al. (Fonger) 5,190,528 Mar. 2, 1993
Claims 6 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Toye.
Claims 1 through 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Fonger in view of Toye.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the
above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellant regarding those rejections, we make
reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 16, mailed April
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007