Appeal No. 2001-2073
Application No. 09/098,799
3) affirmed the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 6
and 9 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Graham;
4) affirmed the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 9
through 11, 13, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Amoils;
5) reversed the examiner's rejection of claim 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Graham; and
6) affirmed the examiner's rejection of claim 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Graham.
In addition to the foregoing, we REMAND this application to
the examiner to consider if it would have been obvious within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of appellant's invention to provide a tubular housing
(12) in the intra-ocular suction cutter of Amoils sized smaller
than fifteen gauge. Amoils discloses a tool of the same nature
as that disclosed and claimed by appellant, but is silent
concerning the sizing of the housing therein. It would thus be
1515
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007