Appeal No. 2002-2340
Application 08/886,666
fibers. Thus feature applies only to independent claim 77.
Appellants recognize this in their remarks at the bottom of page
6 of the brief. The examiner's reasoning of relying additionally
upon Pristash is well-taken and restated properly by appellants
at the bottom of page 6 of the answer that the combination
obviously would have increased within 35 U.S.C. § 103 the area of
illumination around the surgical site.
Brody's surgical illuminator in Figure 1 is applied to a
retractor 67 in the Figure 8 embodiment. It is comprised of the
surgical illuminator 11 of Figure 1 adhesively attached in a
conforming manner to the shape of the retractor 67 as shown in
Figure 8. It appears that the illumination shown in this figure
occurs only at the distal ends 31 of the optical fibers such that
only the end portion illuminates the incision 73. For his part,
Pristash presents various embodiments of transparent light
emitting panels formed in such a manner as to cause light
entering a panel along an input edge thereof to be emitted along
the length of the panel. Within 35 U.S.C. § 103, we find that
the artisan would have found Pristash's teaching an obvious
enhancement to Brody for the reasons stated by the examiner since
it would have obviously increased the area of illumination within
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007