Appeal No. 2003-1171
Application 09/809,648
each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is not necessary that the
reference teach what the subject application teaches, but only
that the claim read on something disclosed in the reference,
i.e., that all of the limitations in the claim be found in or
fully met by the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
In finding that the subject matter recited in claim 1 is
anticipated by Danks, the examiner reads the claim limitations
relating to the body assembly, cannula assembly and obturator
assembly on Danks’ housing 40, cannula tube 84,1 and obturator
12, respectively.
As framed and argued by the appellants, the dispositive
issue with respect to the rejection is whether Danks meets the
obturator assembly limitations requiring the distal end of the
obturator to have a tip which is non-conical and has an upper
face and a lower face which taper to form a V-shaped distal end
of the tip and wing elements located between the upper and lower
1 On page 3 in the answer, the examiner inaccurately
identifies the cannula tube as element 14.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007