Appeal No. 2003-1725
Application No. 09/357,645 Page 5
claims 1-9, 12-15, 17-28 and 32 based on a preamble-body
incongruity.
As for claim 16, the examiner has not fairly established
that the claim body recitation of the coupling of a pumping
cartridge including the collapsible tube to a component including
the occluding member is incompatible with the claim preamble in a
manner so as to render the claimed subject matter indefinite.
For reasons as explained by appellants at page 8 of the
substitute brief, which reasons are incorporated by reference at
page 7 of the supplemental brief, the examiner has not shown that
the method step recited in claim 16 would not be readily
understood in the context of an occlusion method, when read in
light of the specification from the viewpoint of one of ordinary
skill in the art.
Omission of Occluder Blade
The examiner argues that claims 1-7, 12-28 and 32 are
incomplete in that an occluder blade, an alleged essential
element, is not required. However, as correctly pointed out by
appellants (substitute brief, pages 8-10 and reply brief, pages
4-6)1, the appealed claims are drawn to an occluder and an
1 Incorporated by reference at page 7 of the supplemental
brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007