Appeal No. 96-2043
Application 07/990,514
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir.
1992). Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hussein in view of L'Esperance, Guerder, Davies and Seppala.
Claims 3 through 7 are dependent on claim 1 and,
therefore, contain all of the limitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, the examiner’s respective rejections of claims 3
through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will not be sustained.
b. Claims 2, 8 and 9
Independent claim 8 contains all of the limitations of
claim 1 previously discussed and, in addition, further defines
the
plurality of fiber-optic waveguides as being disposed around
the guidewire lumen in the elongated catheter. Further, each
waveguide is recited as having a glass material cladding
surrounding the core and a diameter no greater than 200
microns.
In the rejection of claim 8, the examiner applies Hussein,
L'Esperance, Guerder, Davies and Seppala, as in the rejection
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007