Appeal No. 2005-2607
Application No. 09/865,774
OPINION
For the reasons expressed in the answer and below, we will
sustain this rejection.
The independent claim on appeal distinguishes from the Ott
patent by requiring “a cushioned member positioned on at least
one pressure contact surface of the hand grip.” The trocar
handle 110 of Ott’s trocar assembly 20 is not disclosed as having
any such cushioned member. We agree with the examiner, however,
that it would have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary
skill to provide patentee’s trocar handle with a grip layer of
the type and for the reasons taught by Silber.
According to the appellants, no reason exists for combining
these reference teachings in the above proposed manner. We
cannot agree. As more fully explained in the answer, an artisan
would have been motivated to so combined these reference
teachings in order to provide the trocar handle of Ott with the
several advantages taught by Silber to attend use of his grip
layer such as reduced fatigue and occupational injuries due to
minimalization of gripping force (e.g., see lines 1-10 in column
2(...continued)
2004) which expressly permits a supplemental examiner’s answer).
However, this error on the examiner’s part is harmless since,
from our perspective, the supplemental answer merely reiterates
positions previously advanced by the examiner in the answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007