Appeal No. 2001-0515
Application 08/926,358
recited to extend along the largest diameter of the oval body) lies in a medial-lateral plane. With
regard to this latter claim limitation, the original drawings are inconclusive, particularly in view of
their sketchy nature.
With regard to the new ground of rejection of claim 3 under the fourth paragraph of
§ 112, claim 3 recites that the body is “substantially oval.” As such, claim 3 has the effect of
broadening parent claim 1, rather than further limiting claim 1 as required in the fourth paragraph
of § 112.
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 6 and 7 under § 102(b) as anticipated
by Lippincott is reversed, the examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 4 under § 102(b) as
anticipated by Rambert is reversed, the examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 4 and 6-8
under § 103 as unpatentable over Worland in view of Kinnett is reversed and the examiner’s
decision to reject claim 5 under § 103 as unpatentable over Worland, Kinnett and Williamson is
reversed. In addition, new grounds of rejection of claims 1 and 3-8 have been introduced
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b) (amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197
(Oct. 10, 1997), 1203 Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)). 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b) provides that, “A new ground of rejection shall not be considered final for purposes
of judicial review.”
37 CFR § 1.196(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS
FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007