Appeal No. 97-2552 Page 13
Application No. 08/541,658
In applying the test for obviousness, we reach the 4
conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the
surgical instruments of either Sinofsky '670 or Sinofsky '677 to
employ a liquid light guide as suggested and taught by Thomas for
the self evident advantage of having the liquid act to guide the
light to the anastomotic site.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
3 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed and a new rejection
of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been added pursuant
to provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final rule
notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53131, 53197 (Oct. 10, 1997), 1203 Off. Gaz.
Pat. Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)). 37 CFR § 1.196(b) provides
4The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007