Appeal No. 2001-1472
Application 08/772,878
that it would have been further obvious to the artisan to provide
a metal tip insert to Manna’s probe, as taught by Kühne, to allow
for the tip to be a harder material than the probe.
Appellant’s arguments (brief, pages 7-12) again initially go
to the fact that lipectomy as in Manna is a fundamentally
different process than lithotrity and that there would be no
incentive to combine Manna with Wuchinich and Kühne. In this
instance, we note that representative claim 22 is drawn to a
power delivery tip “for . . . lithotrity.” Thus, the claims on
appeal are directed to a power delivery tip having a particular
configuration for use on an ultrasonic probe wherein the tip must
have the capability of being used in lithotrity. While Manna
specifically discloses the probe therein as being used for a
lipectomy procedure, we find no evidence of record to establish
that the probe and power delivery tip of Manna would be incapable
of being used for lithotrity if subjected to an appropriate level
of ultrasonic energy. Moreover, since Manna already discusses
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007