Appeal No. 2003-0760
Application No. 05/730,221
ceramic in a surgical blade was known in the art, we will not
sustain this rejection.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
of Claims 27-30 and 32-37
We will not sustain this rejection.
In the first place, Meyer discloses a cauterizing wire D.
Wire D is not disclosed as forming a cutting edge. Accordingly,
combining the teachings of Meyer and Marcoux does not result in a
method utilizing a cutting edge.
Furthermore, assuming for purpose of argumentation that wire
D of Meyer forms a cutting edge, the examiner did not establish
that Meyer or Marcoux, or the combination thereof, suggests for
any reason the desirability of increasing power dissipation in
selected regions along a cutting edge to maintain the temperature
of the cutting edge substantially within a selected operating
range. The problem addressed by appellant is not recognized by
the prior art. That problem is to prevent significant increased
bleeding in fleshy areas of a corpus which tend to cool adjacent
portions of a cutting edge. Appellant accomplishes this by
increasing power dissipation in those adjacent portions of the
cutting edge so as to maintain the temperature of the edge
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007