Appeal No. 2001-1472
Application 08/772,878
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 reached the
determinations which follow.
Before turning to the merits of the rejections before us on
appeal, we make note of appellant’s grouping of the claims set
forth on page 3 of the brief. In accordance with the dictates of
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), we have selected claim 22 from appellant’s
grouping and we shall decide the issues before us on appeal on
the basis of that claim alone. The remaining claims of the
grouping (claims 23 through 29) will stand or fall with claim 22.
Looking first to the examiner’s rejection of representative
claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combined teachings
of Brumbach, Manna, Wuchinich, and Kühne, we note that Brumbach
(like appellant) discloses an ultrasonic lithotritor probe for
performing fragmentation and removal of calculi deposits in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007