Appeal No. 2003-1171
Application 09/809,648
another, comprise wing elements located between the upper and
lower faces proximate the distal end of the obturator under the
conventional definition of the term “wing” advanced by the
appellants: “a part or feature usu. projecting from and
subordinate to the main or central part” (reply brief, page 3).
Hence, the appellants’ position that the obturator tip
limitations in claim 1 distinguish the claimed trocar over that
disclosed by Danks is not well taken. We shall therefore sustain
the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 1 as being
anticipated by Danks.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of dependent claim 3 as being anticipated by Danks
since the appellants have not challenged such with any reasonable
specificity, thereby allowing this claim to stand or fall with
parent claim 1 (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 5 as being
unpatentable over Danks in view of Wolf
We shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of dependent claim 5 as being unpatentable over Danks in view of
Wolf since the appellants have not challenged such with any
reasonable specificity, thereby allowing this claim to stand or
fall with parent claim 1 (see Nielson, supra).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007