Appeal No. 2004-0551 Page 18
Application No. 09/393,256
claimed subject. See In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17
(Fed. Cir. 2000).
In this case, the examiner has not provided any evidence providing the
necessary suggestion or motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to have provided an additional through channel or bore in the
device of Weiland to route additional wire. Accordingly, the examiner has not set forth
a case of obviousness.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 30,
and claim 31 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Weiland is reversed.
Claims 32 and 33
Independent claim 32 reads as follows:
An ultrasonic probe comprising:
a shaft; a threaded connector at one end of said shaft for connecting said
shaft to a source of ultrasonic mechanical vibrations; and
a probe head at an end of said shaft opposite said connector, said probe
head being provided on at least one lateral side with an axially symmetric recess.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007