Appeal No. 2002-2340
Application 08/886,666
It is thus apparent to us that the examiner's basic argument
with respect to Wunsch and Mori that the shaping of a light
emitter in the form of a tip would have been obvious to the
artisan as desired for observation in use is well founded
according to the noted teachings and suggestions of both
references. Additionally, appellants' arguments as to this
rejection at pages 8 and 9 of the brief are not persuasive.
Appellants' observation that In re Dailey still requires that a
hook-shaped tip of a light emitter means be one of numerous noted
configurations is misplaced because the evidence before us among
both references indicates that such is the case.
Lastly, we turn to the rejection of claims 77-85, 93, 94,
108, 119, 131, and 132 as being obvious over Brody in view of
Pristash within 35 U.S.C. § 103. It appears that the examiner's
statement of the rejection at pages 2 and 3 of the final
rejection applies to all the claims rejected but most
specifically the examiner notes three deficiencies with respect
to Brody. Brody's initially noted deficiency is that this
reference does not teach a light emitter means extending
lengthwise along the instrument such that light is emitted along
a portion of the length of the light emitter means or optical
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007