Appeal No. 97-3292
Application 08/522,827
evident advantage of verifying the findings relative to the
optical diagnosis.
Notwithstanding our determinations, supra, like
appellants’ (brief, page 6), the difficulty we have with the
examiner’s rejection is that it fails to take into account the
specific optic probe of step (d) in claim 14; the optic probe
being an expressly defined entity necessary for practicing the
claimed invention. More specifically, claim 14 requires an
optic probe comprising, inter alia, an optic fiber bundle and
a hollow needle having a “mirror” for reflecting light at
“approximately a 90 degree angle relative to the longitudinal
axis of said optic fiber bundle” and having a “window through
which said reflected light may pass.” The examiner has not
provided evidence that
this particularly claimed optic probe was known or would have
been obvious when appellants’ invention was made. For the3
3The optical needle of Janes (Figs. 3A, 3B and Figs. 8A, 8B) includes cladding
for achieving internal reflection but lacks a mirror, as disclosed and claimed. Further,
it is apparent from a consideration of the noted drawing figures in Janes that, with the
configuration of the depicted optical needle, light is not reflected at approximately a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007