Appeal No. 2001-2073
Application No. 09/098,799
appellant's sole argument regarding this rejection seems to be
that the surgical instrument of Amoils fails to show a diffuser
positioned over an aperture. While appellant has indicated on
pages 7 and 8 of the brief that each of the claims subject to
this rejection "stand or fall alone," we note that appellant has
not presented any separate arguments with regard to the
individual claims. Accordingly, we consider that we are free to
select a claim or claims as being representative of the claims
subject to this rejection and decide the appeal on the basis of
those claims alone. We select claims 9 and 13 as being
representative.
Independent claim 9 is clearly directed to the embodiments
of appellant's invention seen in Figures 6A through 7B. However,
this claim does not appear to positively recite a "diffuser" as
an element of the claim. Looking at the surgical tool of Amoils
(Fig. 1) and reading claim 9 thereon, we note that the tool of
Amoils is a surgical tool for injecting fluid into a patient and
includes a hollow tubular member or housing (12) having a
sidewall defining a bore having a central axis, wherein said
sidewall is provided with first and second apertures (26); and
wherein the tool further includes a means coupled to the housing
1111
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007