Ex Parte Hadzic et al - Page 6

           Appeal No. 2006-1746                                                                      
           Application No. 10/375,679                                                                

           28-31 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Chester, Applicants         
           contend (Br. 8 and 9) that Chester's all-in-one apparatus has no remotely located         
           components and that the nerve stimulator in Chester is remote from the needle             
           since the nerve stimulator is located on the syringe and not on the needle.               
           Additionally, Applicants contend that the claim requires the needle functionality         
           indicia be proximate to the hub, and that if the nerve stimulator is remote with          
           respect to the needle, then the indicia, which is disposed on the nerve stimulator        
           cannot be proximal to the hub.  The Examiner contends (Answer 9 and 10) that the          
           term "remote" in claim 1 does not have a reference point and that "remote" can be         
           interpreted as being "remote" from the nerve stimulation needle as a whole or any         
           portion of the needle.  In the Reply Brief (page 9), Applicants respond that the term     
           "remote" is not bereft of a reference point and that "remote" refers to being remote      
           from the preceding claim elements; i.e., the hand graspable hub and the needle            
           operatively coupled to the hand graspable hub.                                            
              With regard to the rejection of claims 20 and 23-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as        
           being unpatentable over Cory in view of Chester, the Examiner contends that Cory          
           fails to disclose the visual indicator being rigidly coupled to the needle.  To           
           overcome this deficiency of Cory, the Examiner (Answer 7) turns to Chester for a          
           suggestion of a visual indicator rigidly coupled to the needle, and maintains (id.)       
           that it would have been obvious to provide Corey with a rigid coupling.                   
           Applicants contend (Br. 13) that Cory teaches keeping nerve stimulator/display            
           remote from the needle and that Chester keeps the nerve stimulator/display in rigid       
           combination with the needle.   Specifically, Applicants contend (Br. 13 and 14)           
           that both these references teach that the visual indicator comprises an integral part     
           of the nerve stimulator itself.  In the Reply Brief (page 12) Applicants add that         


                                                  6                                                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013