Appeal No. 2006-1746
Application No. 10/375,679
Accordingly, claim 29, and claims 30, 31, and 33 which depend therefrom, fall
with the remainder of the claims of the group.
CONCLUSION OF LAW (ISSUE II)
The rejection of claims 1-8, 10-12, 15-18, 20, 21, 23-25, 28-31, and 33 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is sustained.
FINDING OF FACTS (ISSUE III)
1. As found by the Examiner (Answer, page 7) Cory shows a nerve block
needle 107 comprising a remote nerve stimulator 131, electrical
coupling 122, 126, 142 to the nerve stimulator 131, and a visual
indicator 141 (Fig. 2).
2. Cory additionally discloses (col. 2, lines 14-23) that
U.S. Patent No. 4,515,168 to Chester et al.
discloses to clamp a nerve stimulator and locating
device onto a syringe. As the entire nerve
stimulator device is clamped onto the syringe, the
unit is a long and clumsy assembly, which is difficult
to maneuver. Moreover, the device disclosed by
Chester does not allow for one-handed operation of
needle advancement and current control.
Particularly, the needle is advanced by one hand
while the current must be controlled by turning the
knob 27 with the other hand, which is an extremely
awkward operation for the user.
3. We make reference to our findings, supra, with respect to the teachings
of Chester.
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013