Appeal No. 2001-1472
Application 08/772,878
why one skilled in the art would not have found the teachings of
Kühne and Wuchinich at least reasonably pertinent.
However, we share appellant’s view expressed on pages 11 and
12 of the brief that the examiner has failed to meet his burden
of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, since even if
the applied references were to be combined as urged by the
examiner we do not see that a power delivery tip having the
specific configuration set forth in claim 22 on appeal would be
the result. More particularly, while the examiner has asserted
that Manna discloses a probe having “an enlarged tip,” the
examiner has not directed us to any embodiment of Manna that
shows or discloses a tip having “an enlarged annular flat surface
transverse to the longitudinal axis of the tube for engaging the
calculi on a power delivery end of the tip” wherein said enlarged
annular flat surface has “an inner diameter of a smaller relative
size than the inner diameter of the tube and an outer diameter of
a larger relative size than the outer diameter of the tube” and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007