Ex Parte 7351248 et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 29, 2012

90009638 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 29, 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.
90/009,638 12/16/2009 7351248 67167-0003 7505
10291 7590 02/29/2012
RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC
39533 WOODWARD AVENUE
SUITE 140
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304-0610
EXAMINER
CLARK, JEANNE MARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3993
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/29/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte Centurion Medical Products Corporation,
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________

Appeal 2012-001456
Reexamination Control 90/009,638
Patent 7,351,248 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before SALLY G. LANE, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and
JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-001456
Reexamination Control 90/009,638
Patent 7,351,248 B2

2

Centurion Medical Products Corporation, the owner of the US Patent
7,351,248 B2 under reexamination1 (hereinafter the “‘248 Patent”), appeals
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306 from a final rejection of claims 1-11
(Supplemental Appeal Brief filed June 6, 2011, hereinafter “App. Br.,” at 5;
Final Office Action mailed October 6, 2010). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306.
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This reexamination proceeding arose from a third-party request for ex
parte reexamination filed by John R. Schaefer of Bacon & Thomas, PLLC
(Corrected Request for Ex Parte Reexamination filed December 16, 2009).
We have also been informed that the ‘248 Patent was the subject of litigation
styled Centurion Medical Products Corporation v. Surgical Design, Inc.,
Case No. 1:09-cv-04696, U.S. District Court (N.D. Illinois), which has been
settled. (App. Br. 4.)
The ‘248 Patent is directed to medical and surgical instruments, which
incorporate a precision box hinge. (Col. 1, ll. 12-15.) Figure 5 of the ‘248
Patent is reproduced below:

1 See Patent Assignment Abstract of Title, Reel 023065, Frame 0531, which
was entered into the record of this proceeding as “Title Report” on
December 1, 2009.
Appeal 2012-001456
Reexamination Control 90/009,638
Patent 7,351,248 B2

3

Figure 5 depicts a perspective view of a surgical instrument 10
including a first elongated member 12 having a first box hinge portion 16, a
handle end portion 18, and a working tip portion 26, and a second elongated
member 14 having a second box hinge portion 22 with ends 34 and 36, a
handle end portion 24, and a working tip portion 26. (Col. 3, ll. 16-19, 40-
46.) The second box hinge portion 22 has opposing side surfaces 30 and a
cross section that conforms to generally flat parallel sides 32 of slot 28 of
first box hinge portion 16. (Col. 3, ll. 49-53.)
Claims 1 and 3 on appeal read as follows:
1. A surgical instrument comprising:
a first elongated member having a handle end portion, a
working tip portion and a box hinge portion between said
handle and tip end portions;
a second elongated member having a handle end portion,
a working tip portion and a box hinge portion between said
handle and tip end portions;
said first box hinge portion being defined by a slot
having generally flat parallel sides for receiving said second
box hinge portion therein;
said second box hinge portion having a continuous, non-
stepped, cross-sectional shape conforming with the flat, parallel
sides of the slot in said first box hinge portion and comprising a
Appeal 2012-001456
Reexamination Control 90/009,638
Patent 7,351,248 B2

4
surface generally perpendicular to the parallel sides, the surface
having a width that is generally continuous in width with the
handle and tip portions of the second elongated member on
either side of the second box hinge portion;
said working tip portion of said first elongated member
extending in a gradually tapered disposition from said first box
hinge portion to a tip of said first elongated member, and edges
of said first and second elongated members having a smooth
cooperative transition so that relative movement between the
instrument box hinge, and a suture in uninterrupted so as not to
create any snag points; and
a hinge pin extending through the parallel sides of the
slot and through said second box hinge portion hingedly
connecting together said first and second elongated members.
3. The surgical instrument of claim 1, wherein the
transitional slope of the second elongated member between the
box hinge portion and the handle end portion on one end and
the box hinge portion and the working tip portion on the other
end is a long smooth oblique transition.
(Claims App’x, App. Br. 28, 29.)

The Examiner relied upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability (Examiner’s Answer mailed August 15, 2011, hereinafter
“Ans.,” 5):
Jaekisch DE 23 64 287 June 26, 19752
Tiholiz US 5,036,733 Aug. 6, 1991
Tabrah US 2,726,657 Dec. 13, 1955

2 Hereinafter “DE ‘287.” We rely on the English Translation of DE ‘287 of
Record.
Appeal 2012-001456
Reexamination Control 90/009,638
Patent 7,351,248 B2

5
The Examiner rejected claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over DE ‘287 in view of Tiholiz and Tabrah. (Ans. 5-9.)

CLAIM INTERPRETATION
“‘During reexamination, as with original examination, the PTO must
give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification.’” In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (quoting In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007)). Although claims are interpreted in light of the
specification, limitations from the Specification are not read into the claims.
In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

“Generally Continuous in Width”
In applying the prior art to the claims, the Examiner construed the
claim limitation that the second box hinge portion comprises a surface
perpendicular to the parallel sides “having a width that is generally
continuous in width with the handle and tip portions of the second elongated
member on either side of the second box hinge portion” to include “a
constant width, widths having a smooth, uninterrupted taper, and widths
having a slight irregularity or interruption.” (Ans. 6-7, 10-11.)
Appellant apparently does not consider widths having a slight taper to
be “generally continuous in width” as recited in claim 1. (See App. Br. 13-
16; Reply Brief filed June 22, 2011, hereinafter “Rep. Br.,” at 3-4.)
Appeal 2012-001456
Reexamination Control 90/009,638
Patent 7,351,248 B2

6
We essentially agree with the Examiner, that a second box hinge
portion with a width having a slight taper would be encompassed by the
phrase “generally continuous in width.” Specifically, as the Examiner points
out, the ‘248 Patent does not provide any special definition of “generally
continuous in width” that would necessarily exclude any tapering. (Ans.
10.) Thus, the Examiner was correct to rely on the plain meaning of the
word “generally” as embracing slight variations from and “continuous” as
evidenced by the definitions provided by the Examiner. (Ans. 10-11.)
The Examiner’s construction is also consistent with the purpose of the
‘248 Patent to eliminate machined portions, i.e., recesses, of the second box
hinge portion of the second elongated member in order to prevent snagging.
(Col. 1, ll. 31-39, 60-63.) Therefore, we accept the Examiner’s well-
reasoned construction as comporting with the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claims.

“Smooth Cooperative Transition”
The Examiner has interpreted the claim phrase “edges of said first and
second elongated members having a smooth cooperative transition so that
relative movement between the instrument box hinge, and a suture in
uninterrupted so as not to create any snag points” to include “edges, whether
beveled or not beveled, that have a smooth cooperative (e.g., no sharp steps)
transition and are capable, whether explicitly, implicitly, or inherently, of
not providing any snag points for a suture line.” (Ans. 16.)
In arguing against the Examiner’s rejection over the prior art,
Appellant stated that edges having an abrupt, sharp edge upon which sutures
Appeal 2012-001456
Reexamination Control 90/009,638
Patent 7,351,248 B2

7
may snag does not meet the recited “smooth cooperative transition,”
consistent with the Examiner’s interpretation. (See App. Br. 18.) Moreover,
the Examiner’s interpretation appears to be consistent with the portions of
the ‘248 Patent identified by Appellant as corresponding to this limitation.
(App. Br. 8.)
Thus, we adopt the Examiner’s construction of this limitation of the
claims as being consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of a
“smooth cooperative transition.”

ISSUES
The Examiner found that DE ‘287 discloses a surgical instrument as
recited in claim 1, where the surgical instrument appears to have a second
box hinge portion with a width that is generally continuous with the width of
the handle and tip portions as recited in the claim. (Ans. 5-6.) Alternatively,
the Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to make the width
of the second box hinge portion of the instrument described in DE ‘287
generally continuous in width in order to simplify the manufacturing
process. (Ans. 6-7.)
The Examiner also found that the working tip of the first elongated
member disclosed in DE ‘287 is gradually tapered from the first box hinge
portion to a tip of the first elongated member, which would not create any
snag points thereon. (Ans. 6.) The Examiner concluded that in light of
Tiholiz’s disclosure that working tip members are gradually tapered from the
first box hinge portion to the top of the first elongated member and Tabrah’s
disclosure that edges in surgical instruments that have a smooth cooperative
Appeal 2012-001456
Reexamination Control 90/009,638
Patent 7,351,248 B2

8
transition avoid snagging suture lines, it would have been obvious to modify
the working tip of DE ‘287 to have a gradual taper and the members to have
a smooth cooperative transition as claimed. (Ans. 7.) The Examiner
reasoned that such modifications would have been well known in the art and
desirable to avoid snagging the suture line, and for ease of cleaning and
manufacture. (Ans. 7.)
Appellant contends that DE ‘287 must be strictly construed to disclose
a second box hinge portion with a tapered profile, which is also consistent
with the profile of the second box hinge portion disclosed in Tiholiz. (App.
Br. 14-15.) Appellant argues that contrary to the Examiner’s position, it
would be more difficult to manufacture a surgical tool where the second box
hinge portion has a continuous, non-stepped cross-sectional shape. (App.
Br. 17.) Appellant also argues that Tabrah lacks a box hinge, but that the
analogous surfaces in Tabrah are also not generally continuous in width.
(App. Br. 16.) As a result, Appellant argues that the combination of the
prior art applied by the Examiner does not disclose or suggest to one of
ordinary skill in the art to produce a second box hinge portion with a
generally continuous width, or having the gradually tapered disposition and
smooth cooperative transition recited in the claims. (App. Br. 17-18.)

Thus, the principal issues in this appeal are:
(1) Did the Examiner err in concluding that a surgical instrument
having a second box hinge portion having a width that is “generally
continuous in width” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
in view of DE ‘287, Tiholiz, and Tabrah, when viewed as a whole?
Appeal 2012-001456
Reexamination Control 90/009,638
Patent 7,351,248 B2

9
(2) Did the Examiner err in concluding that a working tip portion of a
first elongated member “extending in a gradually tapered disposition” would
have been obvious in view of DE ‘287 and Tiholiz?
(3) Did the Examiner err in concluding that edges of said first and
second members having “a smooth cooperative transition” would have been
obvious in view of DE ‘287, Tiholiz, and Tabrah, when viewed as a whole?

FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
1. The ‘248 Patent discloses that surgical instruments having
machined portions are manufactured using “very expensive and
precise matched grinding of the handles at either end of the box
hinge where the machined portion first interfaces with the slot.”
(Col. 1, ll. 19-39, 52-53.)
2. The ‘248 Patent discloses a “hinge portion of generally
continuous section in the second member” to replace a
machined portion as known in the art in order to eliminate
points where a suture could snag. (Col. 2, ll. 4-19.)
3. The ‘248 Patent discloses:
The slope of the side surfaces of the second elongate
member is nearly flat, although there may be some
tapering of the of the member between the box hinge
portion and the handle end portion on one end of the box
hinge and the box hinge portion and the working tip
portion on the other end of the box hinge.
(Col. 2, ll. 39-44, see also col. 3, ll. 49-67.)

Appeal 2012-001456
Reexamination Control 90/009,638
Patent 7,351,248 B2

10
4. The ‘248 Patent discloses that:
the second box hinge portion 22 can be disposed
between handle end 24 and working tip 26 of portions
that therein provide a long smooth oblique transition
thereby being generally nearly flat and extending
outward and away from the box hinge portion toward
the handle end portion on one end of the box hinge and
working tip portion on the other end of the box hinge.
(Col. 4, ll. 1-7.)

5. Figure 3 of DE ‘287 is reproduced below:

Figure 3 is a box-joint forceps in an exploded view, including a
leg 10 including a slot 16, a leg 11 which includes a slight taper
in the width on the handle side of the second box hinge portion,
and a pivot pin 12. (DE ‘287, p. 2-3; Ans. 7, App Br. 13-14.)
6. DE ‘287 discloses that the construction of the box-joint forceps
“is designed for simplified production.” (Page 1.)
7. Tiholiz discloses medical instruments, such as forceps, with
non-slip engaging surfaces. (Col. 1, ll. 10-19.)

Appeal 2012-001456
Reexamination Control 90/009,638
Patent 7,351,248 B2

11
8. Figure 12a of Tiholiz is reproduced below:

Figure 12a is a perspective view of a coaptive instrument
having an engaging surface 24. (Col. 6, ll. 24-31.)
9. Tabrah discloses surgical instruments including beveled and
rounded surfaces in order to prevent sutures from catching on a
joint when the instrument is in use, and to make the joint easier
to manufacture, clean, and maintain. (Col. 1, ll. 15-20; col. 2, l.
51 – col. 3, l. 6.)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A prima facie case of obviousness is established where the Examiner
demonstrates that the invention is nothing more than the predictable result of
a combination of familiar elements according to known methods. KSR Int'l
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-17 (2007). “[I]f a technique has
been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or
her skill.” Id. at 417.

ANALYSIS
Issue 1
In light of the claim interpretation discussed above, we agree with the
Examiner that DE ‘287 discloses a second box hinge portion having a
Appeal 2012-001456
Reexamination Control 90/009,638
Patent 7,351,248 B2

12
surface generally perpendicular to the parallel sides “generally continuous in
width” with the width of the handle and tip portions of the second elongated
member on either side of the second box hinge portion. That is, although
Figure 3 of DE ‘287 depicts a slight taper in the width of the second
elongated member (leg 11) on the handle side of the second box hinge
portion (see FF 5), because the term “generally continuous” allows for
widths with a smooth uninterrupted taper, the width recited in claim 1 reads
on the leg 11 disclosed in DE ‘287. As discussed above, the width profile of
leg 11 is consistent with the purpose of the ‘248 Patent, which is to eliminate
the machined portion, or recess, in the prior art second elongated members
to prevent snagging. (FF 2.) Appellant has not pointed to persuasive
evidence that the structural configuration in DE ‘287 is excluded by the
claim language.
In this regard, Appellant’s argument that DE ‘287 should be strictly
construed to disclose tapered widths misses the mark. The issue is not
whether DE ‘287 discloses a tapered width. Indeed, the Examiner and
Appellant appear to agree on that point. (Ans. 6, 10-11; App. Br. 13-14.)
Rather, the issue here is whether the claims may be reasonably interpreted to
include the tapered widths depicted in DE ‘287. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument disputing the
Examiner’s alternative rationale that a second elongated member having a
generally continuous width would be easier to manufacture. (App. Br. 17.)
Appellant has not directed us to persuasive evidence on the record to support
their argument. As the Examiner points out, the ‘248 Patent discloses that
Appeal 2012-001456
Reexamination Control 90/009,638
Patent 7,351,248 B2

13
prior art machined portions of box hinge instruments were very expensive to
manufacture due to matching grinding employed where the machined
portion first interfaces with the slot. (Ans. 13, FF 1.) Moreover, DE ‘287
discloses that the forceps disclosed therein are designed for simplified
production. (FF 6.) Thus, the preponderance of the evidence of record
indicates that prior art devices having machined portions to form the slot are
more expensive to manufacture versus devices that do not have machined
portions.
In addition, Appellant’s arguments that Tiholiz does not disclose a
second box hinge member having a width that is generally continuous as
recited in claim 1, and that Tabrah does not disclose a box hinge, are
attacking the references individually and fail to consider what the prior art as
a whole would have taught to one of ordinary skill in the art. (App. Br. 15-
16.) Appellant has not directed our attention to sufficient evidence of record
that would indicate that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
incapable of combining the teachings of the prior art in the manner
articulated by the Examiner.

Issue 2
We find no persuasive merit in Appellant’s argument that the surgical
tool of DE ‘287 cannot be modified to assume the tapered tip of Tiholiz or
that Tiholiz’s second member does not meet the requirements of the second
elongated member recited in the claims. (App. Br. 18-19.) Tiholiz provides
evidence that such tapered tips on surgical instruments were known in the
art. (FF 7-8.) As the Examiner points out, Tiholiz is only relied on for
Appeal 2012-001456
Reexamination Control 90/009,638
Patent 7,351,248 B2

14
teaching the gradually tapered disposition of working tips. (Ans. 14.) We
have not been directed to persuasive evidence that applying the tips of
Tiholiz to the instruments of DE ‘287 would have been beyond the
capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner, that it would have been obvious to have utilized the tip
configuration in Tiholiz in the instruments of DE ‘287 since such tips were a
known design of surgical instruments. (Ans. 7-8.)

Issue 3
Appellant’s arguments that the prior art would not have rendered
obvious the “smooth cooperative transition” of the edges of the first and
second elongated members recited in claim 1 are also unavailing. Although
Appellant argues that DE ‘287 discloses abrupt external edges (App. Br. 18;
Rep. Br. 4-5), we, like the Examiner, are unable to discern an appreciable
difference between the edges depicted in Figure 3 of DE ‘287 and the edges
depicted in, for example, Figure 5 of the ‘248 Patent, identified by Appellant
as supporting such limitation. (Ans. 13-14; App. Br. 8.) Appellant has not
adequately explained how the annotation “C”3 in Figure 3 of DE ‘287 shows
an abrupt, sharp edge upon which a suture could snag. (App. Br. 18; Rep.
Br. 4.)

3 Although Appellant refers to annotations of the prior art Figures in the
Appeal Brief, no such annotations are visible. (App. Br. 14-16, 19.)
Accordingly, we refer to the Reply Brief for the annotations to the extent
that the annotations appear to be consistent with Appellant’s arguments.
(Rep. Br. 4, 7, 8.)
Appeal 2012-001456
Reexamination Control 90/009,638
Patent 7,351,248 B2

15
Although Appellant contends that “beveling the surfaces of the
claimed invention with the bevels of Tabrah would still present snagging
surfaces” (App. Br. 19), Appellant has not directed our attention to any
persuasive evidence on the record that the modified edges of DE ‘287 in
view of Tiholiz and Tabrah, when taken as a whole, would have snagging
surfaces. In this regard, Tabrah expressly discloses that beveling and
rounding the surfaces of the joint of the forceps avoids snagging of sutures.
(FF 9.)
Appellant’s contention that the areas of potential snagging on surgical
tools having a scissor or an X-joint are different than surgical tools having a
box joint (App. Br. 19) does not provide a sufficient basis from which to
conclude that such a modification for a box joint would also not aid in
preventing snagging. Moreover, the ‘248 Patent’s disclosure that a surgical
tool with beveled edges still would have snagging above and below the pivot
point of the hinge relates to those surgical instruments having a second
elongated member with a machined portion that extends through the slot of
the first elongated member and does not address the combination of the prior
art in the present rejection. (See the ‘248 Patent, col. 1, ll. 19-45.) Thus, the
modification of DE ‘287 in view of Tiholiz to introduce the beveled or
rounded edges of Tabrah produces a surface that is capable, whether
explicitly, implicitly, or inherently, of not providing any snag points for a
suture line, which comports with the broadest reasonable interpretation of
the claims as discussed above.
Regarding Appellant’s argument that DE ‘287 cannot be modified
with the disclosure in Tiholiz to include a working tip of a first elongated
Appeal 2012-001456
Reexamination Control 90/009,638
Patent 7,351,248 B2

16
member in a gradually tapered disposition from the first box hinge portion to
the tip of the first elongated member and the transition surfaces of Tabrah,
Appellant has not provided sufficient reasoning as to why this is the case.
(App. Br. 18.) To the extent Appellant is arguing that DE ‘287 may not be
modified because it is a foreign reference (see App. Br. 13), we have not
been directed to sufficient basis in the law to support a proposition that a
foreign reference may not be modified as part of an obviousness analysis.

Claim 3
ISSUE
The Examiner concluded that the “transitional slope of the second
elongated member” that is a “long smooth oblique transition,” as recited in
claim 3, is an alternative structure that results in a nearly flat slope, and that
DE ‘287 appears to show substantially the same structure, consistent with
the side surfaces shown in the ‘248 Patent. (Ans. 20; See also Ans. 18-19.)
Appellant argues that Figure 3 of DE ‘287 shows that the second
elongated member has sharp, abrupt steep transitions on either side of the
box hinge portion at the transition between the box hinge portion and the
handle portion. (App. Br. 21.)
Therefore, an additional issue on appeal is:
(4) Did the Examiner err in concluding that the prior art would have
rendered obvious the transitional slope of the second elongated member
having a “long smooth oblique transition” as recited in claim 3?

Appeal 2012-001456
Reexamination Control 90/009,638
Patent 7,351,248 B2

17
ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that none of the cited
references disclose a long smooth oblique transition because the second
elongated member in DE ‘287 has sharp abrupt steep transitions on either
side of the box hinge portion at the transition between the box hinge portion
and the handle portion. (App. Br. 21.) However, Appellant does not
adequately explain how the structure in DE ‘287 differs from the structure of
the surgical instrument as claimed.
As the Examiner points out, Appellant appears to be referring to the
width of the second elongated member, whereas the ‘248 Patent appears to
describe the smooth oblique transition with respect to the side surfaces.
(Ans. 18, 20; FF 4.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s
arguments do not distinguish the structures of the ‘248 and DE ‘287. We,
like the Examiner, are unable to discern a difference between the second
elongated member recited in claim 3 and the second elongated member
disclosed in DE ‘287. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that DE
‘287 discloses the limitations of claim 3.

Claim 11
ISSUE
Claim 11 is similar to claim 1, but additionally recites that “said width
of said surface on either side of the second box hinge portion being generally
as wide as said slot.” The Examiner found that the width for the surface of
the second elongated member on either side of the second box hinge portion
Appeal 2012-001456
Reexamination Control 90/009,638
Patent 7,351,248 B2

18
is “generally” as wide as said slot as depicted in Figures 1-3 in DE ‘287.
(Ans. 9.)
Appellant argues that DE ‘287 does not disclose that a surface of a
second box hinge portion has a width that is generally as wide as the slot of
the first box hinge portion on either side of the second box hinge portion.
(App. Br. 26.) Specifically, Appellant contends that Member 11 disclosed in
DE ‘287 must be narrower at its tip portion than the slot in order to insert
member 11 into the first box hinge member 16. (App. Br. 26.)

Therefore, an additional issue on appeal:
(5) Did the Examiner err in finding that DE ‘287 discloses the width
for the surface of the second elongated member on either side of the second
box hinge portion is “generally” as wide as said slot as recited in claim 11?

ANALYSIS
We discern no error in the Examiner’s finding that the width of the
surface of the second member, member 11 in Figure 3 of DE ‘287, on either
side of the box hinge is “generally” as wide as the slot of the first elongated
member 10. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that the phrase
“generally” allows for widths that are slightly narrower than the slot, which
would encompass the member 11 disclosed in DE ‘287. (Ans. 25.)
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that similar to DE ‘287, the surgical
instrument recited in claim 11 would also require that the tip portion of the
second elongated member to be inserted through the box hinge portion in
order to assemble the device. (Ans. 25.) The construction of the second
Appeal 2012-001456
Reexamination Control 90/009,638
Patent 7,351,248 B2

19
elongated member 14 of the ‘248 Patent and the second elongated member
11 of DE ‘248 appear to be sufficiently similar in this regard. (See the ‘248
Patent, Fig. 5; FF 5.) Therefore, Appellant has not provided persuasive
evidence or argument that would refute the Examiner’s position.

Claims 2 & 4-10
Although Appellant presents separate headings for dependent claims
4-9 and independent claim 10, Appellant’s arguments with respect to these
claims essentially rely on the arguments as discussed for claim 1, and/or
allege that the prior art does not disclose the additional limitations recited in
the claims, without providing any substantive discussion as to why this is the
case. Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-9 as well as
independent claim 10 for the reasons discussed above.

CONCLUSION
On this record, Appellant has failed to demonstrate any error in the
Examiner’s factual findings and conclusions that:
(1) a surgical instrument having a second box hinge portion having a
width that is “generally continuous in width” would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the in view of DE ‘287, Tiholiz, and Tabrah, when
viewed as a whole;
(2) a working tip portion of a first elongated member “extending in a
gradually tapered disposition” would have been obvious in view of DE ‘287
and Tiholiz;
Appeal 2012-001456
Reexamination Control 90/009,638
Patent 7,351,248 B2

20
(3) edges of said first and second members having “a smooth
cooperative transition” would have been obvious in view of DE ‘287,
Tiholiz, and Tabrah, when viewed as a whole;
(4) the prior art would have rendered obvious the transitional slope of
the second elongated member having a “long smooth oblique transition” as
recited in claim 3; and
(5) DE ‘287 discloses the width for the surface of the second
elongated member on either side of the second box hinge portion is
“generally” as wide as said slot as recited in claim 11.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) is affirmed.
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

cu

Appeal 2012-001456
Reexamination Control 90/009,638
Patent 7,351,248 B2

21
FOR PATENT OWNER:
RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC
39533 WOODWARD AVENUE
SUITE 140
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304-0610

FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER:
BACON & THOMAS PLLC
625 SLATERS LANE
FOURTH FLOOR
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-1176