Appeal No. 2006-1746
Application No. 10/375,679
- a remote peripheral nerve stimulator;
- an electrical tether to operably electrically couple the needle to the remote
peripheral nerve stimulator; and
- a needle functionality indicia disposed proximal the hand graspable hub.
The prior art relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is:
Chester et al. (Chester) 4,515,168 May 7, 1985
Griffith 6,325,764 Dec. 4, 2001
Cory et al. (Cory) 6,706,016 Mar. 16, 2004
(filed Nov. 21, 2001)
With regard to the rejection of claims 36-52 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (first
paragraph) the Examiner contends (Answer 4) that the specification discloses
embodiments in Figs. 1, 4, and 5 which have a remote stimulator and a needle and
a hub having a display. The Examiner adds that the embodiment in Fig. 6 shows a
remote stimulator, a remote nerve stimulator operational status display, but does
not disclose a needle with a hub that has a display. Applicants contend (Br. 5 and
6) that the embodiment of figure 6 presents a display that is remote from the needle
and its hub. Applicants argue that the details of the hub are defined in Fig. 2,
which clearly presents the hub as having at least one and possibly a plurality of
displays 24.
With regard to the rejection of claims 1-8, 10-12, 15-18, 20, 21, 23-25,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013