Appeal No. 2002-0311 Page 2
Application No. 09/030,241
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a method of performing a medical procedure
on the respiratory system of a patient. An understanding of the invention can be
derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which appears in the appendix to the
appellant's Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Ben-Haim 5,443,489 Aug. 22, 1995
Darrow et al. (Darrow) 5,577,502 Nov. 26, 1996
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Darrow in view of Ben-Haim.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 19) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and to
the Brief (Paper No. 17) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007