Appeal No. 2001-1472
Application 08/772,878
Brumbach. More specifically, appellant urges (brief, page 7)
that the lipectomy procedure disclosed in Manna is a
fundamentally different process than lithotrity, that there would
be no incentive to combine Manna with Brumbach, and that Manna is
neither analogous nor reasonably pertinent to the problem solved
by appellant’s claimed invention. In that regard, appellant
further contends that the enlargement of the head in the
lipectomy probe of Manna is explicitly provided to increase an
ablation rate of fat and that the examiner has failed to provide
any cogent reason why it should be viewed otherwise, or why one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention
would have sought to provide the lithotritor probe of Brumbach
with such a head.
Like appellant, we find no cogent reason or suggestion,
other than hindsight gleaned from appellant’s own disclosure, for
combining the enlarged head of the liposuction probe of Manna
with the lithotritor probe of Brumbach. In describing the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007