Appeal No. 2001-0550
Application No. 09/030,792
Appellants’] co-pending application[s] are allowed and upon
allowance of claims commensurate in scope with Claims 1, 2, and
9-14.”
In that appellants have chosen not to present any
substantive argument directed to the merits of these rejections,
but have simply offered to submit terminal disclaimers to obviate
them upon allowance of claims commensurate in scope with the
appealed claims, these rejections of claims 1, 2 and 9-14 are
summarily affirmed.
The anticipation rejection of claims 13 and 14 based on Dieras
Independent claim 13 is directed to a liquefication
apparatus comprising “a source of heated solution,” a means for
directing the heated solution to tissue to be treated, means for
irrigating the tissue, and means for aspirating the liquefied
portion of the tissue.
Dieras pertains to an ultrasound apparatus for the curettage
or exeresis of biological tissue by irrigation of a liquid
subject to cavitation and by suction of the disaggregated tissue
(abstract). The examiner directs our attention to the Figure
8 embodiment and finds correspondence between lumens 37 and
14 and the annular space between tubes 14 and 16 of the Figure
8 embodiment and the various “means” of claim 13. Concerning the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007