Appeal No. 2002-2340
Application 08/886,666
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief (no reply brief has been
filed) for appellants' positions, and to the final rejection
and answer for the examiner's positions.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the examiner in the final
rejection and answer, we sustain each of the above-noted
rejections of the claims on appeal as further embellished upon
here.
We turn first to the rejection of claims 77 and 137 as being
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Wunsch. Independent
claim 37 requires the separate recitation of an instrument and a
light delivery system removably attached to this instrument.
Appellants' position as to this rejection at page 5 of the
brief notes that Wunsch's medical-diagnostic inspection spatula
10 is itself light conductive and that there is no separate light
delivery system or instrument disclosed in Wunsch to correspond
to the instrument of this claim. In response, we agree with the
examiner's assessment of this argument at pages 3 and 4 of the
answer that the claimed instrument reads on or corresponds to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007