Appeal No. 2001-2073
Application No. 09/098,799
which the fluid flows. Appellant points to Figures 8, 9A, 9B,
and 10 as an example of subject matter covered by claims 3 and 6,
noting that those figures show a surgical tool wherein perforated
caps (92) and (102) are secured over the open distal end
(aperture) through which the fluid exits the tool (90).
After considering appellant's disclosure as a whole and
reviewing claim 6 in light of the specification (In re Sneed, 710
F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983)), we find
that the specification would permit one skilled in the art to
make and use appellant's claimed subject matter without undue
experimentation. The only embodiments actually described by
appellant as including a permeable or perforated cap are seen in
Figures 8, 9A, 9B, and 10 wherein the caps (94) or (102) clearly
are secured over the open distal end of the hollow tool shaft
(100). It is clear to us that claims 3 and 6 are readable on
these embodiments of appellant's invention.
Since our review of appellant's specification reveals
adequate guidance to enable the skilled artisan to make and use
the claimed invention without undue experimentation, it follows
that the examiner's rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007