Appeal No. 2003-1374
Application No. 09/591,947
PRIOR ART
In support of his rejection, the examiner relies on the
following prior art references:
Hayes et al. (Hayes) 4,967,745 Nov. 6, 1990
Prescott 5,989,245 Nov. 23, 1999
(Filed Mar. 31, 1997)
REJECTION
Claims 13, 15 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Hayes and Prescott.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and prior
art, including all of the arguments advanced by both the examiner
and appellants in support of their respective positions. This
review leads us to conclude that the examiner’s § 103 rejection is
well founded. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s § 103
rejection for essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer and
below.
The appellants do not dispute the examiner’s finding that
Hayes teaches a catheter corresponding to the claimed catheter,
except that it employs an array of light sources (optical fibers)
and an energizing means associated therewith, rather than the
claimed elongated array of semiconductor light sources and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007