Ex Parte Bown et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2012

11466602 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2012)

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.
11/466,602 08/23/2006 Matthew W. Bown 101672.0056P 2259
34284 7590 09/17/2012
Rutan & Tucker, LLP.
611 ANTON BLVD
SUITE 1400
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
EXAMINER
PANI, JOHN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3736
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2012 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 MATTHEW W. BOWN, MARK A. CHRISTENSEN,
GUY ROME, and BRET HAMATAKE
__________

Appeal 2011-010590
Application 11/466,602
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before DEMETRA J. MILLS, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and
STEPHEN WALSH, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

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

Appeal 2011-010590
Application 11/466,602

2
Statement of the Case
Background
The Specification teaches that “a stylet may comprise a slender, solid,
and/or hollow metal member that, when positioned within a lumen of a
catheter, stiffens the catheter sufficiently to allow for placement of the
catheter within the patient” (Spec. 2 ¶ 0002).
The Claims
Claims 21-24, 26-33, and 42 are on appeal. Claim 22 is representative
and reads as follows:
22. A stylet, comprising:
an elongated core element completely surrounded by a
polymer member from a proximal most point of
the core element to a distal end thereof, the
polymer member extending distal of the core
element distal end;
a closure element affixed to a distal end of the polymer
member; and
a plurality of field emitting permanent magnetic elements
disposed distal of the core element distal end and
proximal of the closure element, the polymer
member surrounding the magnetic elements.

The issues

A. The Examiner rejected claims 21,
1
22, 26, 27, 29-32, and 42 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Anderson
2
and Lind
3
(Ans. 3-6).

1
The omission of claim 21 from the statement of rejection at Ans.
3 is an apparent typographical error, as the rejection (Ans. 4-5) and
response to argument (Ans. 12) explain its rejection.
2
Anderson, C., US 4,244,362, issued Jan. 13, 1981.
3
Lind, S., US 5,067,489, issued Nov. 26, 1991.
Appeal 2011-010590
Application 11/466,602

3
B. The Examiner rejected claims 23, 24, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Anderson, Lind, and Stoy
4
(Ans. 6-7).
C. The Examiner rejected claims 32 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Anderson, Lind, and Boudewijn
5
(Ans. 7).
A. U.S.C. § 103(a) over Anderson and Lind
The Examiner finds that Anderson teaches “a stylet (at least Fig. 10),
comprising: a polymer member . . . extending from a proximal most point of
the stylet to a distal end thereof (see Fig.10)” (Ans. 3-4). The Examiner
finds that Anderson also teaches “a closure element (65;
alternatively/additionally 63 and 65) affixed to a distal end of the polymer
member; and a plurality of field emitting permanent magnetic elements (60,
61, etc.) disposed at the stylet distal end and proximal of the closure
element, the polymer member surrounding the magnetic elements” (id. at 4).
The Examiner finds that Lind discloses a stylet with a core wire which
“includes an enlarged head (14) the same diameter as the outer member
which affixes the core wire to the outer element, because this provides a
strong joining of the core wire to the outer element” (id.). The Examiner
finds it obvious to
have modified Anderson by including a core wire within the
outer polymeric element which included an enlarged head
the same size as the lumen within the outer element and
affixed at the distal end of the distal lumen in order to
provide a good combination of flexibility and pushability
and to retain the forward elements of the wire upon
withdrawal as taught by Lind.

4
Stoy et al., US 5,217,026, issued Jun. 8, 1993.
5
Boudewijn et al., US 2003/0208142 A1, published Nov. 6, 2003.
Appeal 2011-010590
Application 11/466,602

4

(Id.)
Appellants contend that the “considerations of pushability and
retraction do not correlate from the Lind guidewire device to the Anderson
endotracheal intubation device. Moreover, the proposed combination would
impermissibly interfere with the flexibility of the Anderson device, without
realizing the asserted benefits” (App. Br. 7).
Appellants contend that “the asserted combination also fails to show
or describe the relative positions of the elongated core element with respect
to the polymer member or the plurality of field emitting permanent magnetic
elements with respect to the core element distal end, as recited by
independent claims 22 and 42” (id.).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner‟s conclusion that the combination of Anderson and
Lind render claim 22 obvious?
Findings of Fact
1. Figure 10 of Anderson is reproduced below:

“FIG. 10 is a sectional view of a further embodiment of the stylet”
(Anderson, col. 5, ll. 22-23).
Appeal 2011-010590
Application 11/466,602

5

2. Anderson teaches that:
In the present invention, a stylet is used as herein indicated
in that it is a device that fits inside an endotracheal tube and
is used to help direct the tube. However, as defined herein, it
is not designed to make the tube more rigid nor to change
the shape of the tube. Accordingly, for the present purposes
a stylet is defined as a flexible device which fits within a
tube and may be passed therethrough.

(Anderson, col. 5, ll. 37-44.)
3. Anderson teaches that:

The main body 25 of the stylet is comprised of a
coiled spring of a non-magnetic material such as stainless
steel or other non-magnetic material. Such a tube could be
constructed of a suitable plastic material manufactured so as
to conform to the characteristics of a coiled spring. A
magnet 27 is secured to the other end of the spring. Magnet
27 may be encased within an inert housing 29 . . . such as
stainless steel, plastic etc., which is then secured to one end
of stylet 25 by means of a weld or adhesive.

(Anderson, col. 6, ll. 5-14.)
4. Anderson teaches that the “main body of the stylet is comprised
of a similar coiled spring 55 which extends substantially the length of the
stylet” (Anderson, col. 6, ll. 54-56).
5. Anderson teaches that the “spring 55 has inserted therein a
series of small magnets beginning with magnet 59 at one end and
terminating at the other end with magnets 60 and 61. These magnets have a
diameter slightly smaller than the internal diameter of the section of coil
spring 55 which encases them” (Anderson, col. 6, ll. 59-64).
Appeal 2011-010590
Application 11/466,602

6
6. Anderson teaches that the “magnets terminate in a larger
magnet 63 which has a reduced section 61 which fits within the end of the
coil spring and is secured thereto by means such as by soldering or with an
adhesive” (Anderson, col. 6, l. 66 to col. 7, l. 1).
7. Anderson teaches that “an inner hemispherical segment 65 is
secured to the outer end of magnet 63 by means such as an adhesive”
(Anderson, col. 7, ll. 2-4).
8. Anderson teaches that the “stylet is flexible and is inserted into
the throat of the patient and acts as a guide for subsequent insertion of the
endotracheal tube over the stylet” (Anderson, abstract).
9. Anderson teaches that “when using the stylet with smaller
diameter endotracheal tubes, allows the small magnets to function as one
magnet, but articulate with each other, whereby the removal of the stylet
from the smaller endotracheal tube is greatly eased” (Anderson, col. 7, ll.
27-31).
10. Figure 1 of Lind is reproduced below:

“FIG. 1 is a broken-away cross sectional view of an end portion of a guide”
(Lind, col. 2, ll. 30-31).
Appeal 2011-010590
Application 11/466,602

7
11. Lind teaches that “[e]longated, flexible guide units are often
used in medical procedures to gain access to specific inner areas of the body
without major surgery” (Lind, col. 1, ll. 8-10).
12. Lind teaches that the “guide wire 10 shown in FIG. 1 includes a
core wire having a forward end 12 of reduced diameter and which terminates
forwardly in a cylindrically shaped plug 14. The plug is generally circular in
cross section” (Lind, col. 2, ll. 42-45).
13. Lind teaches that the “core of the guide wire itself functions as
the safety wire to prevent loss of the forward end elements of the guide
when it is withdrawn from a body channel” (Lind, col. 2, ll. 23-26).
14. The Specification teaches that
one or more grooves 97 may be defined along the outer
surface of tubular member 54 to provide a desired level of
flexibility to tubular member 54. Grooves 97, which may be
formed in any number of shapes and sizes, generally
represent any form of groove, indentation, hole, aperture, or
notch defined into or through one or more portions of
tubular member 54

(Spec. 15 ¶ 0061).
15. The Specification teaches that “gaps 52 may increase the
flexibility of distal region 20 of stylet 10 and may allow tubular member 54
to be bent without bringing longitudinally adjacent magnetic elements 70
into contact with one another” (Spec. 12 ¶ 0056).
Principles of Law
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
(2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; (3) the differences between the
Appeal 2011-010590
Application 11/466,602

8
claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) secondary considerations of
nonobviousness, if any. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966).
The Supreme Court has emphasized that “the [obviousness] analysis need
not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Analysis
Claims 22 and 42
Anderson teaches a stylet (FF 1). In particular, Anderson teaches that
the “main body of the stylet is comprised of a similar coiled spring 55 which
extends substantially the length of the stylet” (Anderson, col. 6, ll. 54-56; FF
4). Anderson teaches that “[s]uch a tube could be constructed of a suitable
plastic material manufactured so as to conform to the characteristics of a
coiled spring” (Anderson, col. 6, ll. 7-10; FF 3).
Anderson teaches a distal closure element where “an inner
hemispherical segment 65 is secured to the outer end of magnet 63 by means
such as an adhesive” (Anderson, col. 7, ll. 2-4; FF 7).
Anderson also teaches that the “spring 55 has inserted therein a series
of small magnets beginning with magnet 59 at one end and terminating at
the other end with magnets 60 and 61. These magnets have a diameter
slightly smaller than the internal diameter of the section of coil spring 55
which encases them” (Anderson, col. 6, ll. 59-64; FF 5). As shown in Figure
1 of Anderson, the magnets are proximal of the closure element and the
Appeal 2011-010590
Application 11/466,602

9
polymer member 55 is shown and expressly stated to surround the magnetic
elements (FF 1, 5).
Lind teaches inclusion of a guide unit where the “core of the guide
wire itself functions as the safety wire to prevent loss of the forward end
elements of the guide when it is withdrawn from a body channel” (Lind, col.
2, ll. 23-26; FF 13).
Applying the KSR standard of obviousness to the findings of fact, we
agree with the Examiner that
because the stylet of Anderson includes a plurality of
magnets and an endcap (analogous to endcap 28 of Lind) at
its distal end (which could detach and present a choking
hazard if the stylet were to break), one of ordinary skill in
the art would recognize the added safety provided by
securing the distal end with a safety wire in the manner
taught by Lind.

(Ans. 9.) That is, the ordinary artisan would have incorporated the guide
wire core linked to endcap system of Lind into the stylet of Anderson in
order to have prevented detachment of the closure element 65 and magnet 63
into the patient‟s body lumen when the stylet is withdrawn from the lumen.
Such a combination is merely a “predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Appellants contend that the “considerations of pushability and
retraction do not correlate from the Lind guidewire device to the Anderson
endotracheal intubation device. Moreover, the proposed combination would
impermissibly interfere with the flexibility of the Anderson device, without
realizing the asserted benefits” (App. Br. 7).
Appeal 2011-010590
Application 11/466,602

10
We are not persuaded. Considerations of pushability and retraction
are clearly relevant to Anderson, since Anderson requires that the “stylet is
flexible and is inserted into the throat of the patient and acts as a guide for
subsequent insertion of the endotracheal tube over the stylet” (Anderson,
abstract; FF 8). Further, Anderson teaches that “when using the stylet with
smaller diameter endotracheal tubes, allows the small magnets to function as
one magnet, but articulate with each other, whereby the removal of the stylet
from the smaller endotracheal tube is greatly eased” (Anderson, col. 7, ll.
27-31; FF 9). Thus, Anderson recognizes that both upon insertion (FF 8)
and upon removal (FF 9), the device must be flexible but function as a
guide.
Appellants contend that “the asserted combination also fails to show
or describe the relative positions of the elongated core element with respect
to the polymer member or the plurality of field emitting permanent magnetic
elements with respect to the core element distal end, as recited by
independent claims 22 and 42” (App. Br. 7).
We are not persuaded. The combination of Anderson and Lind, as
discussed in the rejection, clearly shows the magnetic elements are encased
by the polymer member, as taught by Anderson (FF 5) and are located
proximal to the closure element 65 (FF 1).
Appellants contend that the “spaces created between the turns of the
coil would not constitute a polymer member completely surrounding the
core element” (App. Br. 14). Appellants contend that “a coiled spring does
not provide disclosure of a polymer member capable of completely
surrounding an elongated core element” (id.).
Appeal 2011-010590
Application 11/466,602

11
We are not persuaded. Anderson expressly teaches that the “magnets
have a diameter slightly smaller than the internal diameter of the section of
coil spring 55 which encases them” (Anderson, col. 6, ll. 62-64; FF 5). The
reasonable interpretation of “encases” is that the coil completely surrounds
the magnetic core. Appellants do not identify any teaching in the
Specification which supports their interpretation that a coil encasing a core
cannot “completely surround” the core as required by claim 22. However,
the Specification does teach that
one or more grooves 97 may be defined along the outer
surface of tubular member 54 to provide a desired level of
flexibility to tubular member 54. Grooves 97, which may be
formed in any number of shapes and sizes, generally
represent any form of groove, indentation, hole, aperture, or
notch defined into or through one or more portions of
tubular member 54

(Spec. 15 ¶ 0061; FF 14.) Since the groove may be a hole or aperture that is
defined through the tubular member, the reasonable interpretation of the
Specification is that a tube can “completely surround” the core even if holes
or apertures are present to permit flexibility, which is consistent with the
interpretation of the Examiner.
Claim 30
The Examiner finds that “Anderson teaches the closure element is
formed from one or more adhesive materials and is bonded to the polymer
member” (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds that the “claim does not require the
„closure element‟ directly contacts the polymer member” (id. at 13-14).
Appeal 2011-010590
Application 11/466,602

12
Appellants contend that “as shown and described, the inner
hemispherical segment 65 is secured to the outer end of the magnet, and not
to the coiled spring, i.e. the asserted polymer member” (App. Br. 15).
We find that Appellants have the better position. The reasonable
interpretation of claim 30 requires that the “closure element . . . is bonded to
the polymer member.” The Examiner‟s interpretation which would permit
the closure element to be bonded indirectly is not consistent with the express
language of the claim, and the Examiner does not identify any teachings in
the Specification which would support this broad reading of the claim. We
therefore agree with Appellants that there is no teaching of closure 65 of
Anderson being bonded to coiled spring 55, the polymer member.
Claims 31 and 32
The Examiner finds that “Anderson teaches the magnetic elements are
spaced from one another, creating a gap therebetween” (Ans. 5). The
Examiner finds that the “claims do not require that the gaps are always
present” (id. at 14).
Appellants contend that “the Anderson magnets do not totally part
from each other. Accordingly, they are not spaced apart by a gap as claimed”
(App. Br. 16).
We find that Appellants have the better position. The Specification
teaches that “gaps 52 may increase the flexibility of distal region 20 of stylet
10 and may allow tubular member 54 to be bent without bringing
longitudinally adjacent magnetic elements 70 into contact with one another”
(Spec. 12 ¶ 0056; FF 15). The reasonable interpretation of the word “gap”
in light of the teaching of the Specification that gaps allow bending without
Appeal 2011-010590
Application 11/466,602

13
contact of adjacent magnetic elements is that the magnets must totally be
separated from one another (FF 15). Figures 10 and 11 of Anderson do not
show complete separation of the magnets by a gap (see, e.g., FF 1).
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner‟s conclusion that the
combination of Anderson and Lind render claim 22 obvious.
The evidence of record does not support the Examiner‟s conclusion
that the combination of Anderson and Lind render claims 30-32 obvious.
B. U.S.C. § 103(a) over Anderson, Lind, and Stoy
The Examiner finds that “Anderson in view of Lind teaches the device
of claims 22 and 27 (see above) but does not explicitly teach a polymer
member as claimed and a sleeve surrounding the magnetic elements and a
distal section of the core element wherein the sleeve is surrounded by the
polymer member” (Ans. 6). The Examiner finds that “Stoy teaches
surrounding a guide wire (3) in a lubricious polymer tube (1,2) in order to
allow the guide wire to slide more easily within lumens” (id.). The
Examiner finds it obvious to “have modified the device of Anderson in view
of Lind by applying a lubricious polymer sheath to the exterior in order to
allow the device to slide more easily within lumens” (id ).
Appellants contend that “that the proposed modification is not
supported by the references and would render the Anderson device
unsuitable for its intended purpose. Even assuming arguendo the
combination can be maintained, the re-identified polymer member of Stoy
does not meet the recitations of independent claim 22” (App. Br. 17).
Appellants contend that “adding the polymer tube of Stoy would
Appeal 2011-010590
Application 11/466,602

14
impermissibly interfere with the flexibility of the Anderson stylet without
providing any of the asserted benefits” (App. Br. 18).
Appellants contend that “Anderson fails to show or describe a
contraction to engage the magnetic elements, as claimed. Instead, the exact
opposite configuration is shown to provide the necessary space to permit the
magnets to articulate with respect to each other” (id. at 20).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner‟s conclusion that the combination of Anderson, Lind,
and Stoy render the rejected claims obvious?
Findings of Fact
16. Stoy teaches that for guidewires, “friction complicates the
device placement, and may even cause injury to certain surfaces (e.g.
tracheal, urethral or vascular wall)” (Stoy, col. 1, ll. 36-39).
17. Stoy teaches that “guidewires are often equipped with surface
layers of various low-friction materials” (Stoy, col. 1, ll. 46-48).
18. Stoy teaches that the “hydrogel sleeve had a tendency to shrink
to ID 0.007", so the entire covered part of a guidewire was effectively
wrapped in a sleeve” (Stoy, col. 8, ll. 61-63).
19. The Specification teaches that “a tubular sleeve 94 may be
circumferentially disposed about and mechanically or chemically coupled to
both the enlarged leading end 68 of core element 60 and at least one of
magnetic elements 70 to effectively couple magnetic elements 70 to core
element 60.” (Spec. 28 ¶ 0085.)
20. The Specification teaches that “magnetic elements 70 may be
retained within tubular sleeve 94 by contracting at least a portion of tubular
Appeal 2011-010590
Application 11/466,602

15
sleeve 94 (e.g., by applying heat to at least a portion of tubular sleeve 94)
about magnetic elements 70” (Spec. 28 ¶ 0085).
Analysis
Claim 23
Anderson and Lind teach a stylet which is “inserted into the throat of
the patient and acts as a guide for subsequent insertion of the endotracheal
tube over the stylet” (Anderson, abstract; FF 8). Stoy teaches that friction
can impede the placement of subsequent devices such as the endotracheal
tube by causing injury to the trachea (FF 16). Stoy teaches that this concern
can be addressed by incorporating “surface layers of various low-friction
materials” (Stoy, col. 1, ll. 46-48; FF 17).
Applying the KSR standard of obviousness to the findings of fact, we
agree with the Examiner that the ordinary artisan would have reasonably
incorporated a lubricious sleeve as taught by Stoy to the stylet of Anderson
and Lind since the sleeve would reduce the risk of injury to the trachea or
other locations of use for the stylet. Such a combination is merely a
“predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Appellants contend that “that the proposed modification is not
supported by the references and would render the Anderson device
unsuitable for its intended purpose. Even assuming arguendo the
combination can be maintained, the re-identified polymer member of Stoy
does not meet the recitations of independent claim 22” (App. Br. 17).
Appellants contend that “adding the polymer tube of Stoy would
Appeal 2011-010590
Application 11/466,602

16
impermissibly interfere with the flexibility of the Anderson stylet without
providing any of the asserted benefits” (App. Br. 18).
We are not persuaded. Appellants provide no evidence that
incorporating a polymer tube as taught by Stoy to reduce friction would have
had any effect on the flexibility of the Anderson stylet. This is also
inconsistent with Stoy‟s recognition that lubricious coated guidewire may
need to pass through vascular systems (FF 16), which the ordinary artisan
would immediately appreciate requires substantially more flexibility than
tracheal placement.
Claim 24
Appellants contend that “Anderson fails to show or describe a
contraction to engage the magnetic elements, as claimed. Instead, the exact
opposite configuration is shown to provide the necessary space to permit the
magnets to articulate with respect to each other” (App. Br. 20).
We are not persuaded. Unlike claim 30, for example, which requires
bonding of an element to the polymer member, claim 24 simply requires that
the sleeve “engage” the magnetic elements. The Specification teaches that
“a tubular sleeve 94 may be circumferentially disposed about and
mechanically or chemically coupled to both the enlarged leading end 68 of
core element 60 and at least one of magnetic elements 70 to effectively
couple magnetic elements 70 to core element 60.” (Spec. 28 ¶ 0085; FF 19.)
Thus, when the Specification discusses attachment, it uses the term
“couple.” By contrast, the Specification also teaches that “magnetic
elements 70 may be retained within tubular sleeve 94 by contracting at least
a portion of tubular sleeve 94 (e.g., by applying heat to at least a portion of
Appeal 2011-010590
Application 11/466,602

17
tubular sleeve 94) about magnetic elements 70” (Spec. 28 ¶ 0085; FF 20).
The reasonable interpretation of “engage” is therefore a connection which
does not require direct “coupling,” in light of the Specification (FF 19-20).
Consequently, when Stoy teaches that the “hydrogel sleeve had a
tendency to shrink to ID 0.007", so the entire covered part of a guidewire
was effectively wrapped in a sleeve” (Stoy, col. 8, ll. 61-63; FF 18),
applying the sleeve to the Anderson and Lind stylet would reasonably be
expected to result in a sleeve which “engages” the magnetic element and
distal section of the stylet.
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner‟s conclusion that the
combination of Anderson, Lind, and Stoy render the rejected claims obvious.
C. U.S.C. § 103(a) over Anderson, Lind, and Boudewijn
The Examiner finds it obvious
to have modified Anderson in view of Lind by including
space between the magnets and filling the space with a
pliant material in order to increase the flexibility of the
device compared with an embodiment with no space while
maintaining the magnets in a desired position as at least
implicitly suggested by Boudewijn

(Ans. 7).
Appellants contend that “Anderson provides a magnetic tip to deflect
the end of a endotracheal intubation control device along a desired path
within the body” (App. Br. 21). Appellants contend that “[s]pacing the
magnets apart as disclosed by Boudewijn would reduce the magnetic
attraction of the tip. . . . Therefore, the modification, as proposed by the
Appeal 2011-010590
Application 11/466,602

18
Examiner, unnecessarily complicates the device and reduces flexibility by
including hard magnets along the length of the stylet” (App. Br. 21).
We find that Appellants have the better position. We agree with
Appellants that Boudewijn‟s spacing of the magnets would clearly reduce
the attraction of the magnetic tip towards the external steering magnetic
element used by Anderson for placement of the stylet (FF 2). As Appellants
point out, the “magnetic field is decreased by the inverse square of the
distance from the magnetic object” (Reply Br. 10). Since the central point of
Anderson is to use the magnets to guide the style to the correct location, we
agree with Appellants that the modification may inhibit “the attraction of the
Anderson device to the external magnetic element used to navigate the
control device through the desired passageways” (id. at 12).
SUMMARY
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over Anderson and Lind. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we
also affirm the rejection of claims 21, 26, 27, 29, and 42 as these claims
were not argued separately.
We reverse the rejection of claims 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Anderson and Lind.
We affirm the rejection of claims 23, 24, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Anderson, Lind, and Stoy.
We reverse the rejection of claims 32 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Anderson, Lind, and Boudewijn.

Appeal 2011-010590
Application 11/466,602

19
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

cdc