Ex Parte Viola

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 1, 2013

10510165 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/510,165 10/01/2004 Frank J Viola 2787 (203-3103) 6649
7590 03/01/2013
Covidien
60 Middletown Avenue
North Haven, CT 06473
EXAMINER
WOO, JULIAN W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3773
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2013 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte FRANK J. VIOLA
__________

Appeal 2011-002387
Application 10/510,165
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, STEPHEN WALSH, and
SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a surgical
clip applying apparatus. The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.

Appeal 2011-002387
Application 10/510,165

2
Statement of the Case
Background
“The present disclosure is directed to an apparatus for applying
surgical fasteners or clips to body tissue during open, laparoscopic or
endoscopic procedures having jaws configured and adapted to withstand
torsional forces acting thereon” (Spec. 2, ll. 18-20).
The Claims
Claims 31-64 are on appeal. Claim 31 is representative and reads as
follows:
31. A surgical clip applying apparatus, comprising:
a handle portion including a moveable handle and a
stationary hand grip;
an elongated body portion extending from the handle
portion; and
a jaw blade extending from said elongated body
portion and operably connected to the handle portion for
selective closure upon an actuation of the moveable handle,
the jaw blade comprising:
a first leg and a second leg, each leg having a jaw
integrally connected thereto and extending distally
therefrom, each jaw defining a channel oriented
substantially along a respective longitudinal axis thereof,
wherein the channels are configured to receive a surgical
clip therebetween, wherein each jaw is oriented at an angle
with respect to a plane defined by the first and second leg;
and
an inter-leg engaging member extending from each of
the first and second legs and including a distal end
engageable with the other of the first and second legs,
wherein the distal end of each inter-leg engaging member is
at all times at least partially engaged with the other of the
first and second legs.

Appeal 2011-002387
Application 10/510,165

3
The issues
A. The Examiner rejected claims 31-37, 41, 43, and 44 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Shannon,
1
Wood,
2
and Tartaglia „106
3
(Ans. 5-7).
B. The Examiner rejected claims 45-50, 52, and 56-59 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Shannon, Farris,
4
and Wood (Ans. 7-10).
C. The Examiner rejected claims 31, 38, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Whitton, Jr.,
5
Wood, and Tartaglia „106 (Ans. 10-12).
D. The Examiner rejected claims 31, 33, 39, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Tartaglia „106 and Wood (Ans. 12-13).
E. The Examiner rejected claims 45, 47, 51, 56, 57, and 60 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Whitton, Jr., Farris, and Wood (Ans. 13-
14).
F. The Examiner rejected claims 52-54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Tartaglia „313,
6
Farris, and Wood (Ans. 14-15).
G. The Examiner rejected claim 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Wood, Shannon, and Farris (Ans. 16-18).
H. The Examiner rejected claims 61, 62, and 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Shannon, Farris, Wood, and Carignan
7
(Ans. 18).
I. The Examiner rejected claim 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Wood, Shannon, Farris, and Carignan (Ans. 18-19).

1
Shannon, S., US 3,653,389, issued Apr. 4, 1972.
2
Wood, E., US 3,363,628, issued Jan. 16, 1968.
3
Tartaglia, J., US 4,452,106, issued Jun. 5, 1984.
4
Farris, R., US 6,066,174, issued May 23, 2000.
5
Whitton, Jr. et al., US 3,140,715, issued Jul. 14, 1964.
6
Tartaglia, J., US 4,318,313, issued Mar. 9, 1982.
7
Carignan et al., US 6,319,257 B1, issued Nov. 20, 2001.
Appeal 2011-002387
Application 10/510,165

4
A. 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Shannon, Wood, and Tartaglia
The Examiner finds that “Shannon discloses, at least in the figures, a
surgical apparatus including a handle portion (2 and 3 combined) including a
moveable handle (3) and a stationary hand grip (2), an elongated body
portion (4), and a jaw blade (5 and 6 combined) operably connected to the
handle portion for selective closure” (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds that
Shannon teaches “first and second interleg engaging members (8, 9)
extending from one of the first and second legs, where when the interleg
engaging member are engaged with the others of the first and second legs”
(id.). The Examiner finds that Wood teaches a “channel oriented
substantially along a respective longitudinal axis thereof” (id. at 6). The
Examiner finds that Tartaglia „106 teaches “inter-leg engaging members (40)
of an apparatus that are at all times at least partially engaged with each
other” (id. at 7).
The Examiner finds it obvious to “modify the jaws of Shannon's
device, so that the channel(s) are oriented substantially along a longitudinal
axis of each of the jaws. Such an orientation of a channel would allow the
firm gripping, orientation, and clamping of at least one surgical clip onto a
blood vessel” (id.). The Examiner finds it obvious to “modify the inter-leg
engaging members of Shannon in view of Wood, so that the distal ends are
at all times at least partially engaged with each other. Such a modification
would prevent, at all times, undesirable lateral flexing of the legs and/or
jaws” (id.).
Appeal 2011-002387
Application 10/510,165

5
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of
record support the Examiner‟s conclusion that Shannon, Wood, and
Tartaglia „106 render claim 31 obvious?
Findings of Fact
1. Figure 3 of Shannon is reproduced below:

“FIG. 3 is a view . . . with the forceps at the initial engagement of the article-
engaging teeth when pinching forces are applied to the arms” (Shannon, col.
1, ll. 69-71).
2. Shannon teaches that the “angular configuration of inclined
sections 4 is such that one would not normally handle the forceps here to
operate the forceps but would normally handle the forceps along the ribbed
areas of sections 5 which represents the optimum area for operating the
forceps” (Shannon, col. 2, ll. 73 to col. 3, l. 2).
3. Wood teaches that the “applicator of this invention includes jaw
portions with defining means for receiving the outer faces of the arm portion
[of] the clip. When so received the clip will be firmly held and there will be
little tendency for the clip to be dislodged therefrom before being clamped to
a blood vessel” (Wood, col. 2, ll. 34-39).

Appeal 2011-002387
Application 10/510,165

6
4. Figure 2 of Wood is reproduced below:

“FIG. 2 comprises an enlarged cross-sectional view illustrating the relative
positions of clip, applicator and magazine during loading of the applicator
with a clip from the magazine” (Wood, col. 2, ll. 6-9).
5. Figures 3 and 9 of Tartaglia „106 are reproduced below:

“FIG. 3 is a side plan view of one side of the tool” (Tartaglia „106, col. 2, l.
56). “FIG. 9 is a perspective view of the tool” (Tartaglia „106, col. 3, l. 1).
6. Tartaglia „106 teaches “the guide slot 38 receives tab 40 and
confines movement of the working end 34 of the first jaw insert 28 in a
generally planar relation to the second jaw insert” (Tartaglia „106, col. 4, ll.
33-36).
Appeal 2011-002387
Application 10/510,165

7
Principles of Law
“In proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, the
Examiner bears the burden of establishing a prima face case of obviousness
based upon the prior art.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Analysis
We begin with claim interpretation, since until a claim is properly
interpreted, its scope cannot be compared to the prior art. Appellant
contends that “[c]ontrary to the Examiner‟s assertion, connecting section 2
and hinge section 3 [of Shannon] do[es] not form a handle portion having a
moveable handle and a stationary hand grip, as neither moveable handle nor
stationary hand grip are configured nor intended for engagement by a user”
(App. Br. 12). Thus, the dispute centers on the meaning of the phrase “a
handle portion including a moveable handle and a stationary hand grip” in
claim 31.
Since the Specification does not define these terms, we interpret the
phrase according to the ordinary meaning of the terms as they would be
interpreted by the ordinary artisan. Here, the term “handle” is reasonably
interpreted as “[t]o operate with the hands” and “hand grip” is reasonably
interpreted as “[s]omething, such as a handle, that is suited to a grip by the
hand.”
8

The Examiner finds that “[c]onnecting section 2 and hinge section 3
indeed are capable of being manually grasped, and hinge section 3 is indeed
moveable with respect to a stationary connecting section 2 to effect closure

8
See http://www.thefreedictionary.com/handle;
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/handgrip
Appeal 2011-002387
Application 10/510,165

8
of the jaw blades as claim 31 requires” (Ans. 19). The Examiner finds that
Appellant‟s arguments “are directed to the intended use of the straight
section rather than to structural differences between the invention and
Shannon‟s device” (id. at 19).
We find that the balance of the evidence supports Appellant‟s
position. Shannon teaches that the “angular configuration of inclined
sections 4 is such that one would not normally handle the forceps here to
operate the forceps but would normally handle the forceps along the ribbed
areas of sections 5 which represents the optimum area for operating the
forceps” (Shannon, col. 2, ll. 73 to col. 3, l. 2; FF 2).
If Shannon teaches that section 4 is not reasonably used as a moveable
handle by the ordinary artisan, then we find it is objectively unreasonable for
section 3 of the forceps of figure 3 of Shannon to be interpreted as a
“moveable handle” by the ordinary artisan. Prior art references may be
“indicative of what all those skilled in the art generally believe a certain term
means ... [and] can often help to demonstrate how a disputed term is used by
those skilled in the art.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d
1576, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1996). It is also unreasonable for section 2 to be
interpreted as a “handgrip.” While we are sympathetic to the “intended use”
argument of the Examiner, the structure at issue must have some reasonably
ability to be used in the manner suggested, and section 3 would not
reasonably be used as a moveable handle by the ordinary artisan of ordinary
strength to open and close the forceps of Shannon, nor would section 2
reasonably function as a handgrip.
Appeal 2011-002387
Application 10/510,165

9
The Examiner does not rely upon Wood or Tartaglia „106 for a
“moveable handle” or a “hand grip” (FF 3-6).
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record does not support the Examiner‟s conclusion
that Shannon, Wood, and Tartaglia „106 render claim 31 obvious.
B. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Shannon, Farris, and Wood
The Examiner relies upon Shannon and Wood as discussed above (see
Ans. 7-10) and finds that Farris teaches an apparatus comprising a “handle
portion including a moveable handle . . . a jaw blade (58), and an elongated
body portion (160) rotatably mounted to and extending from the handle
portion or a body portion (160) extending from the handle portion and
including a rotating collar” (Ans. 9). The Examiner finds it obvious to
“modify the apparatus of Shannon, so that it includes a body portion as
claimed. Such a modification would allow the apparatus to be used in a
minimally-invasive procedure for the secure grasping of an implant” (id.).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner‟s conclusion that Shannon, Farris, and Wood render
claim 45 obvious?
Findings of Fact
7. Figure 8 of Farris is reproduced below:
Appeal 2011-002387
Application 10/510,165

10

“FIG. 8 is a front elevational view of the device . . . with the jaws in the
releasing position” (Farris, col. 4, ll. 4-5).
8. Farris teaches that “the actuator is a sleeve 160 that is
concentrically disposed around and slidably mounted on the shaft 52”
(Farris, col. 11, ll. 1-2).
9. The word “concentric” is defined as “having a common center;
extending out equally in all directions from a common center.”
9

10. Shannon teaches that jaws 6 “cannot be misaligned as a result
of the action of the aligning lugs 8 and 9 under normal gripping pressure.
Moreover, arcuate ends of lugs 8 and 9 and arcuate recesses 10 define stop
means to limit the pressure teeth 6 exert on each other and also to insure
complete engagement” (Shannon, col. 2, ll. 30-35).
11. Wood teaches that when “so received the clip will be firmly
held and there will be little tendency for the clip to be dislodged therefrom
before being clamped to a blood vessel” (Wood, col. 2, ll. 36-39).
Principles of Law

9
See http://medical-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/concentrically
Appeal 2011-002387
Application 10/510,165

11
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). “If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability.” Id. at 417. As noted by the Court in KSR, “[a] person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” 550
U.S. at 421.

Analysis
Farris teaches an apparatus with a handle portion including a
moveable handle, sleeve 160 (FF 8), an elongated body portion 52 extending
from the handle portion (FF 7), jaw blades with first and second legs which
are selectively closed upon actuation of the moveable handle 160 (FF 7).
Shannon teaches incorporating interleg engaging members (FF 1) and Wood
teaches “jaw portions with defining means for receiving the outer faces of
the arm portion the clip. When so received the clip will be firmly held and
there will be little tendency for the clip to be dislodged therefrom before
being clamped to a blood vessel” (Wood, col. 2, ll. 34-39; FF 3).
We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to
incorporate Shannon‟s interleg engaging members since Shannon teaches
that jaws 6 “cannot be misaligned as a result of the action of the aligning
lugs 8 and 9 under normal gripping pressure. Moreover, arcuate ends of lugs
8 and 9 and arcuate recesses 10 define stop means to limit the pressure teeth
6 exert on each other and also to insure complete engagement” (Shannon,
Appeal 2011-002387
Application 10/510,165

12
col. 2, ll. 30-35; FF 10). We also agree that incorporation of the channel of
Wood would have been obvious since Wood teaches that when “so received
the clip will be firmly held and there will be little tendency for the clip to be
dislodged therefrom before being clamped to a blood vessel” (Wood, col. 2,
ll. 36-39; FF 11).
Appellant contends that “there is no motivation or suggestion to
configure sleeve 160 to be rotatably mounted to shaft 52” (App. Br. 17).
We are not persuaded because Farris expressly teaches that “the
actuator is a sleeve 160 that is concentrically disposed around and slidably
mounted on the shaft 52” (Farris, col. 11, ll. 1-2; FF 8). Since concentric, by
definition, requires the inner opening of the sleeve to be circular, the
moveable handle of Farris inherently and necessarily is rotatable around the
shaft 52.
Appellant contends that the “addition of a sleeve to the forceps of
Shannon would not allow the forceps to be used in a minimally-invasive
procedure, as proffered by the Examiner. Instead, the modification would
render the forceps of Shannon inoperable for their intended purpose” (App.
Br. 17).
We are not persuaded. “The test for obviousness is not whether the
features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference …. Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In this situation,
the combined teachings of Farris, Wood and Shannon would have suggested
to the ordinary artisan a device for inserting surgical clips which comprised
Appeal 2011-002387
Application 10/510,165

13
Farris‟s applicator modified to include the interleg engaging members of
Shannon and the channel of Wood for the reasons given above. Appellant
instead focuses on specific details of Shannon‟s forceps rather than a
reasonable combination with Farris.
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner‟s conclusion that
Shannon, Farris, and Wood render claim 45 obvious.

C. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Whitton, Jr., Wood, and Tartaglia ‘106
The Examiner finds that:
Whitton, Jr. et al. disclose a surgical apparatus including a
handle portion (13 and proximal portions of 11 and 12
combined) including a movable handle (proximal, inclined
portions of 11 and 12) and a stationary hand grip (13), an
elongated body portion (elements 16), a jaw blade extending
from the elongated body portion and operably connected to
the handle portion for selective closure (from fully open to
fully closed and vice versa) upon an actuation of the
moveable handle . . . and at least one inter-leg engaging
members (20 or 22) extending from one of the first and
second legs

(Ans. 10). The Examiner finds that “Wood teaches a modification of jaw
channels for use in clip application to blood vessels and other fluid ducts”
(id. at 11). The Examiner finds that Tartaglia „106 teaches that “inter-leg
engaging members (40) of an apparatus that are at all times at least
partially engaged with each other” (id.). The Examiner finds it obvious “to
modify the jaws of the device of Whitton, Jr. et al., so that the
Appeal 2011-002387
Application 10/510,165

14
channel(s) are oriented substantially along a longitudinal axis” (id.).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner‟s conclusion that Whitton, Jr., Wood, and Tartaglia
„106 render claim 31 obvious?
Findings of Fact
12. Whitton, Jr. teaches that “the outer surfaces of the arms 11 and
12 may be provided with transverse ridges 23 so that the instrument may be
firmly gripped and easily manipulated by a user” (Whitton, Jr., col. 3, ll. 40-
43).
13. Figure 2 of Whitton, Jr. is reproduced below:

“FIGURE 2 is a side elevational view of the forceps in open condition”
(Whitton, Jr., col. 1, ll. 63-64).
Analysis
Appellant contends that “Whitton, Jr. fails to disclose that „a handle
portion including a moveable handle and a stationary hand grip . . .‟” (App.
Br. 19). Appellant contends that “[c]ontrary to the Examiner's assertion,
connecting portion 13 and proximal end of arms 11, 12 do not form a handle
portion having a moveable handle and a stationary hand grip, as neither
moveable handle nor stationary hand grip are configured for engagement by
a user” (id. at 20).
Appeal 2011-002387
Application 10/510,165

15
We find that the balance of the evidence supports Appellant‟s
position. Whitton Jr. does not reasonably teach a “stationary hand grip” as
required by claim 31 since the hinge 13 would not reasonably be used as a
“hand grip” by the ordinary artisan. The interpretation of the hinge 13 as
inherently or “structurally” satisfying the requirement for a “hand grip” is
objectively unreasonable since the ordinary artisan, using the forceps of
Whitton Jr., would not have gripped hinge 13 during use.
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record does not support the Examiner‟s conclusion
that the combination of Whitton, Jr., Wood, and Tartaglia „106 renders claim
31 obvious.
D. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tartaglia ‘106 and Wood
The Examiner finds that “Tartaglia „106 discloses, at least in figures
1-9, a surgical apparatus including a handle portion (12) including a
movable handle (14 or 16) and a stationary hand grip (at 18)” (Ans. 12).
Appellant contends that “Tartaglia fails to disclose a handle portion
including a moveable handle and a stationary hand grip” (App. Br. 22).
We find that the balance of the evidence supports Appellant‟s
position. Tartaglia „106 does not reasonably teach a “stationary hand grip”
as required by claim 31 since the hinge 18 would not reasonably be used as a
“hand grip” by the ordinary artisan (see FF 5). The interpretation of the
hinge 18 as inherently or “structurally” satisfying the requirement for a
“hand grip” is objectively unreasonable since the ordinary artisan, using the
tweezers of Tartaglia „106 would not have gripped hinge 18 during use.
E. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Whitton Jr., Farris, and Wood
Appeal 2011-002387
Application 10/510,165

16
Appellant contends that “it would not have been obvious to modify
the elongated portion of the forceps of Whitton, Jr. to include slidable sleeve
160 of Farris” (App. Br. 25).
We find that the balance of the evidence supports the Examiner‟s
position. As we noted above, “The test for obviousness is not whether the
features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference …. Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. In this situation, the combined
teachings of Whitton, Jr., Farris, and Wood would have suggested to the
ordinary artisan a device for inserting surgical clips which comprised
Farris‟s applicator modified to include the interleg engaging members of
Whitton Jr., and the channel of Wood for the reasons given in the
Examiner‟s rejection (Ans. 13-14). Appellant instead focuses on specific
details of Whitton Jr.‟s forceps rather than the reasonable combination with
Farris.
F. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tartaglia ‘313, Farris, and Wood
Appellant contends that “[m]odifying arms 10, 10' of forceps to
include sleeve 160 of Farris would prevent proper engagement of finger
pieces 20, 20' by a user, thereby preventing engagement of the jaw
members” (App. Br. 28). Appellant further contends that “the inclusion of a
rotatable body portion within the tweezer forceps serves no practical purpose
as no portion of the tweezer forceps is rotatable relative to any other portion
thereof” (id.).
Appeal 2011-002387
Application 10/510,165

17
We find that the balance of the evidence supports the Examiner‟s
position. In this situation, the combined teachings of Tartaglia „313, Farris,
and Wood would have suggested to the ordinary artisan a device for
inserting surgical clips which comprised Farris‟s applicator modified to
include the interleg engaging members of Tartaglia „313 (see Fig. 1 of
Tartaglia „313) and the channel of Wood for the reasons given in the
Examiner‟s rejection (Ans. 14-16). Appellant instead focuses on specific
details of the tweezers of Tartaglia „313 rather than the reasonable
combination with Farris and Wood. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Appellant provides no evidence that inclusion of the locking elements
into the insertion device of Farris would prevent engagement of the jaw
members. Also, inclusion of Farris‟s sleeve would necessarily permit
rotation when moved forward and back to open and close the jaws of the clip
inserter since the sleeve is formed concentrically, as discussed above (FF 8-
9).
G. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Wood, Shannon, and Farris
Appellant contends that “none of Wood, Shannon or Farris,
individually or in any proper combination, show, teach or disclose a clip
applier including, inter alia, an elongated body portion rotatably mounted to
and extending from the handle portion” (App. Br. 29).
We find that the balance of the evidence supports the Examiner‟s
position. As we have already discussed, Farris‟s sleeve is an elongated body
portion which is mounted on the handle portion and which necessarily has
some capacity to rotate since the sleeve is formed concentrically, as
discussed above (FF 8-9).
Appeal 2011-002387
Application 10/510,165

18
H. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Shannon, Farris, Wood, and Carignan
Appellant contends that:
Carignan fails to disclose rotation of an elongated body
relative to the handle portion causes rotation of the jaw
blades. As discussed above, rotation of knob 14 cause
extension of knob 14 relative to sleeve 16 and retraction of
fork 40 relative to sleeve 16. Thus, rotation of sleeve 16
relative to handle 14 effects open and closing of jaws 34,
not, as the Examiner contends, rotation of jaws 34

(App. Br. 31).
The Examiner “posits that the opening and closing of the jaws 34
entails rotation of the jaws. That is, the jaws rotate about a central axis
passing through hole 38 as seen in figure 3 of Carignan” (Ans. 24).
We find that the balance of the evidence supports Appellant‟s
position. The Examiner provides no evidence that the jaws rotate, and we do
not find any specific teaching in Carignan which teaches rotation of the jaw
blades, rather than the teaching that “rotating the handle causes the jaw to
open and close” (Carignan, col. 1, ll. 41-42). In fact, Carignan teaches that
“the shaft near the jaw has a square cross-section so that the shaft is
substantially prevented from rotating but allowed to move axially along the
opening of the sleeve” (Carignan, col. 1, ll. 40-43). This suggests that
Carignan prevents the shaft, and consequently the jaws, from rotating, rather
than causing rotation.
I. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Wood, Shannon, Farris, and Carignan
Having reversed the previous rejection, because there is no evidence
of record in Carignan teaching a rotation of the jaw blade, we necessarily
also reverse this rejection for the same reasons.
Appeal 2011-002387
Application 10/510,165

19
SUMMARY
In summary, we reverse the rejection of claims 31-37, 41, 43, and 44
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shannon, Wood, and Tartaglia
„106.
We affirm the rejection of claim 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Shannon, Farris, and Wood. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(2006), we also affirm the rejection of claims 46-50, 52, and
56-59, as these claims were not argued separately.
We reverse the rejection of claims 31, 38, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Whitton, Jr., Wood, and Tartaglia „106.
We reverse the rejection of claims 31, 33, 39, and 40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Tartaglia „106 and Wood.
We affirm the rejection of claim 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Whitton, Jr., Farris, and Wood. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(2006), we also affirm the rejection of claims 47, 51, 56, 57, and
60, as these claims were not argued separately.
We affirm the rejection of claims 52-54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Tartaglia „313, Farris, and Wood.
We affirm the rejection of claim 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Wood, Shannon, and Farris.
We reverse the rejection of claims 61, 62, and 64 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Shannon, Farris, Wood, and Carignan (Ans. 18).
We reverse the rejection of claim 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Wood, Shannon, Farris, and Carignan.

Appeal 2011-002387
Application 10/510,165

20
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

cdc