Ex parte JONES - Page 3




          Appeal No. 98-3327                                                          
          Application No. 08/606,651                                                  

          invention is directed to an ophthalmic probe for surgery and                
          the like, which comprises a handpiece having a hollow needle                
          extending therefrom, a connector for connecting the handpiece               
          to a source of energy, an optical fiber for transmitting the                
          energy to the distal end of the needle, and a soft tip molded               
          in place on an inner bushing of the needle that extends                     
          outwardly from an outer metal tube.  We agree with the                      
          examiner that Easley discloses all of the subject matter of                 
          claim 1 except for the requirement that the soft tip be                     
          “molded in place to the inner bushing,” for in the Easley                   
          arrangement, the soft tip is not located at the tip of the                  
          outer metal tube of the needle, but is held in place by means               
          of an extension that is friction fitted into the annular space              
          between the outer metal tube and the inner bushing.  However,               
          it is the examiner’s position that                                          
               [i]t is considered an obvious design consideration                     
               to have molded the soft tip to the inner bushing, as                   
               is well known in the art, in as much as this means                     
               for attachment is different in kind but not in                         
               effect (Paper No. 6, page 2).                                          

          The appellant argues that the required motivation for doing so              
          is lacking.  On this point, we find ourselves in agreement                  
          with the appellant, and it is for this reason that we cannot                
                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007