Appeal No. 95-4246
Application 08/201,052
would not patentably distinguish over the Figure 1 handpiece
of Sharon fitted with such a modified Figure 11 tip member.5
Appellant’s arguments have been considered but are not
persuasive that the examiner erred in rejecting claims 18, 31,
34 and 35. For the reasons noted above, we simply disagree
with appellant that there is no suggestion to combine the
references in the manner proposed. We also disagree with
appellant that Sharon teaches away from providing a flange on
tip member, or that providing Sharon’s tip member with a
flange would defeat Sharon’s purpose because Sharon desires
movement of a narrow tipped scalpel-type instrument. First of
all, Sharon discloses a number of tip member configurations,
at least some of which (e.g., the Figures 5, 6 and 7
embodiments) include a relatively broad end portion. In
addition, as is made clear by Sharon at several places in the
specification (e.g., column 3, lines 30), the laser beam may
5Furthermore, at least the independent claims on appeal
would also not appear to distinguish over the protector 37 of
McFee’s Figure 2 embodiment taken by itself. In this regard,
the protector 37 has a uniform diameter tubular body that
comprises a barrel having an aperture capable of transmitting
a laser beam and the radial flange 38 having at least an outer
portion that comprises a contacting wall having a face
extending continuously radially outwardly to the periphery.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007