Appeal No. 2002-2187
Application 09/149,359
Claims 7 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by, and in the alternative under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over, Blom.
Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (Paper
Nos. 15 and 18) and to the answer (Paper No. 17) for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner regarding
the merits of these rejections.1
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraph, rejections of
claims 17 through 19
These rejections stem from the examiner’s concern (see page
5 in the answer) that the recitation in independent claim 17 of
the insertion cross-section of the resiliently deflectable device
body as being “substantially” uniform lacks written descriptive
support in the underlying specification and, as a consequence,
also renders the scope of the claimed subject matter indefinite.
Claim 17, and claims 18 and 19 which depend therefrom,
pertain to the nasal packing insertion method disclosed by the
appellants on pages 13 and 14 in the specification and in Figures
1 The final rejection also contained a provisional
obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 7 through
13 and 17 through 19, § 102(b) and § 103(a) rejections of claims
9 and 10 based on Bouton, and § 102(b) and § 103(a) rejections of
claim 9 based on Bruce. The examiner has since withdrawn all of
these rejections (see pages 2 through 4 in the answer).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007