Appeal No. 2006-1603 Application No. 10/646,675 REJECTIONS Claims 18 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being unpatentable over Vidal. Claims 18 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Metcalf. Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (mailed January 31, 2006) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellant's brief (filed October 26, 2005) and reply brief (filed March 6, 2006) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst. OPINION In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations that follow. Claim Construction The examiner and the appellant have differing views on 2 of the limitations in claim 18. 1. The appellant argues (Brief, p. 12) that the limitation of an obturator for use in endoscopic surgery has patentable weight as a structural limitation of the shield-less obturator, when contrasted with the obturator of 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007