Appeal No. 2003-1340 Page 7
Application No. 10/072,247
into direct contact with body 3, for the expansion collar is interposed therebetween. The
collar is described merely as being “mounted on” the stylet for insertion into the tapered
tip (column 4, line 38), and to accomplish this the connection between the stylet and the
expansion collar only need be such that shoulder defining recess 16 can push the collar
into position. Moreover, to operate in the manner described, the stylet must readily be
removable from the collar when pulled in the opposite direction, in order to leave the
collar installed in the connection adapter. Thus, from our perspective, the reference
does not support a conclusion that the connection adapter is “secured to” the stylet, as
is required by the claim. Furthermore, as was the case in Sanderson, the tapered
portion in the body of the Holmgreen device does not extend “from” a proximal end “to”
a distal end, but encompasses only a small portion of the distal end.
This being the case, all of the subject matter recited in claim 1 is not disclosed or
taught by Holmgreen, and this rejection of claims 1, 6, 7 and 8 cannot be sustained.
The Section 103 Rejection
Claim 9 stands rejected as being obvious in view of Holmgreen. The test for
obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007