Appeal No. 2002-1220
Application 08/940,601
The argument of appellant in the main (pages 6 through 9)
and reply briefs fails to convince us that the content of each of
independent claims 1 and 9 is not anticipated by or obvious over
the Brinon teaching. Contrary to the assertion in the main brief
(page 7) that Brinon does not disclose appellant’s medical needle
which has a distinctly visible mark at its tip, we determined
above that the claimed needle is anticipated and rendered obvious
by the prior art needle found in the Brinon patent. Thus, the
further argument in the reply brief (page 2) that focuses upon
the marking in Brinon that is spaced from the tip end is
misplaced since the contrasting color of the tip end is
responsive to the visible mark recitation now claimed.
The second rejection
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guerra in view of
Brinon.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007