Appeal No. 2000-2029
Application 09/012,530
10, 2000) for the reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
appellant’s brief (Paper No. 15, filed January 19, 2000) and
reply brief (Paper No. 17, filed June 15, 2000) for the arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
In rejecting claims 6 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Toye it is the examiner’s position (answer,
page 3), that Toye discloses a dilator (22) with a tapered
portion (26) and a generally cylindrical portion (28) located
distally of the tapered portion and that the dilator (at 20) is
capable of receiving a guide wire and a needle. On page 5 of the
answer, the examiner indicates that the part of the dilator seen
in Figure 5 of Toye located between portions (26) and (28) where
the taper changes to a straight portion is a transition stop and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007