Appeal No. 2002-2340
Application 08/886,666
the cavity of the incision 73 shown in Figure 8 of Brody to
include the ability to not only emit light in a parallel manner
to the general axis of the retractor 67 as shown in Figure 8 but
along its conformal shape to further illuminate the incision area
73 to enhance the surgeon's ability to correctly observe the
tissue in the opening associated with this incision. Appellants'
argument at pages 6 and 7 of the brief is misplaced because the
teaching value of Brody is lost in appellants' analysis. It is
not Pristash but Brody which teaches that Brody's own light
distribution system 11 conforms to the general shape of the
instrument. Appellants' effective hindsight argument is
therefore misplaced.
Appellants next argue the subject matter of claims 79, 80,
83 and 84 as a group at the top of page 7 of the brief. The
examiner's initial statement as to representative claim 79 among
this group of claims at the bottom of page 3 of the final
rejection is that clips were well-known equivalents of the
adhesive tape 23 in Brody. Appellants appear to agree with this
assessment by the statement that the "use of clips to attach one
member to another is generally known" as expressed at the middle
of page 7 of the brief. Because the use of adhesive tape is
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007