Appeal No. 2001-1472 Application 08/772,878 Brumbach. More specifically, appellant urges (brief, page 7) that the lipectomy procedure disclosed in Manna is a fundamentally different process than lithotrity, that there would be no incentive to combine Manna with Brumbach, and that Manna is neither analogous nor reasonably pertinent to the problem solved by appellant’s claimed invention. In that regard, appellant further contends that the enlargement of the head in the lipectomy probe of Manna is explicitly provided to increase an ablation rate of fat and that the examiner has failed to provide any cogent reason why it should be viewed otherwise, or why one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention would have sought to provide the lithotritor probe of Brumbach with such a head. Like appellant, we find no cogent reason or suggestion, other than hindsight gleaned from appellant’s own disclosure, for combining the enlarged head of the liposuction probe of Manna with the lithotritor probe of Brumbach. In describing thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007