Appeal No. 1997-3026 Page 4
Application No. 08/344,053
pertinent art would have been led to modify the prior art or to
combine prior art references to arrive at the claimed
invention. Such reason must stem from some teaching,
suggestion or implication in the prior art as a whole or
knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in
the art. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044,
1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S.
825 (1988). These showings by the examiner are an essential
part of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to the instant claims, the examiner basically
finds that either one of Smith or Ishiyama discloses an
ultrasound probe, as claimed, but for the use of plural, joined
flex circuits to interface with the coaxial cable. The
examiner relies on Gorton for providing “multiple joined flex
circuits for ease of connection between piezoelectric elements
and their drive/output circuitry” [answer-page 2]. The
examiner specifically relies on Figures 84-87 of Gorton.
Figures 84-87 of Gorton depict flex circuits 824 and 825
and while Figure 84 shows these two flex circuits juxtaposed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007