Appeal 2006-1414
Application 10/099,381
2. Claims 2 through 6 and 8 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Heller in view of Lonky and Linder as applied
to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Adair.
We refer to the Brief, the Reply Brief, and the Answer for a complete
discussion of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the Appellants and by
the Examiner concerning the above noted rejections.
OPINION
Having carefully considered each of Appellants’ arguments set forth
in the Brief and Reply Brief, we are not persuaded of reversible error on the
part of the Examiner. We sustain the rejections for the reasons set forth in
the Answer and below.
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HELLER IN VIEW OF LONKY
AND LINDER
Heller is directed to “an endotracheal tube 10 having a distal tip
portion 11” (col. 2, ll. 58-59) and a wall 14 (col. 3, l. 18). Heller’s
endotracheal tube includes “[a] fiberoptic light conductor 15 . . . [that]
extends longitudinally through the wall 14 of the tube as shown most clearly
in FIGS. 1 and 2” (col. 3, ll. 15-19). The fiber optic light conductor 15 “is
provided with light emitting means [17 at its distal end] adjacent the distal
end of the tube [10], such means permitting the unobstructed projection of
light in at least one lateral direction” (col. 3, ll. 21-25). Heller discloses that,
“[t]o locate, and if necessary reposition, the tip of an indwelling tube, a user
simply energizes the visible light source and ascertains the location of the tip
by means of the light beamed laterally from the tip and visible through the
body wall of the patient” (col. 2, ll. 9-13).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013