Appeal No. 2000-2029
Application 09/012,530
assembly/dilator tip into a blood vessel at the transition region
of the tip and thereby provide the same form of “stop” described
by appellant.
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Toye. Given appellant’s grouping of the
claims (brief, page 3) and the lack of any separate argument as
to claims 7 through 10, those claims will fall with independent
claim 6 from which they depend.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fonger in
view of Toye, the examiner has indicated that Fonger discloses a
cannula assembly substantially as claimed by appellant, except
that the structure in Fonger does not have a dilator tip
configured in the manner required in claims 1 through 5 on
appeal. To provide for that deficiency in Fonger, the examiner
points to the teachings of Toye. In the examiner’s view
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007