Appeal No. 1998-2798
Application No. 08/645,144
(fig. 5), comprising: a unitary tube (#12
of figs. 5, 9) with a proximal portion of
generally constant cross section and a hole
(22) situated on the distal end, whereby
during use resistance in said unitary tube
is not disclosed to be significantly
increased.
The difference between Adair and new claim
10 is a tapered distal end.
Vilasi teaches and [sic] endotracheal tube
(12) which includes a tapered distal end (44) as
illustrated in fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to employ any
well known endotracheal tube with the fiber
optic bronchoscope of Adair including the
endotracheal tube of Vilasi.
With respect to the claimed one or more
holes, it is submitted that it is commonplace to
employ at least one hole in the distal end of an
endotracheal tube as taught by Adair (fig. 4) in
order to provide a secondary opening to the
interior of the endotracheal tube in the event
that the distal end (16) becomes blocked.
* * * * *
New claim 11 appears to be substantially
equivalent in scope to claim 10 and is included
in Adair as modified by Vilasi for the reasons
set forth above with respect to new claim 10.
After fully considering the record in light of the
arguments presented in appellant’s brief and the examiner’s
answer, we conclude that this rejection is not well taken.
First, we note that, contrary to the examiner’s statement
supra, the tapered distal end 44 of Vilasi is not a part of
the endotracheal tube 12 per se, but rather constitutes tips
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007