Appeal 2006-1414
Application 10/099,381
According to the Examiner, “[t]he difference between Heller and
claim 1 is a chemiluminescent light source . . . built into the endotracheal
tube” (Answer 3). The Examiner relies on both Lonky and Linder to address
the claim limitation of the chemiluminescent light source.
Lonky is directed to “an endoscopic instrument comprising a housing
and a chemiluminescent light source attached thereto” (col. 4, ll. 36-37).
Lonky’s preferred embodiment attaches “the chemiluminescent light source
. . . to one of the dilator blades of a clear plastic speculum or other
endoscope with a means for opening and spreading the cavity to be
observed” (col. 5, ll. 18-21) so as “to illuminate the entire cavity being
observed” (col. 5, ll. 23-24). Lonky also teaches that “[t]he light source may
be inserted directly into the cavity or may be disposed outside the cavity, the
light being directed inward into the cavity by means of . . . fiber optic
elements” (col. 5, ll. 25-29). According to Lonky:
The chemiluminescent light source, in
addition to providing a portable source of
illumination of the body cavity, does so without
producing any heat which could damage, or at
least be uncomfortable to, the tissue in the body
cavity which is being observed with the
endoscopic instrument or by use of the speculum.
Moreover, there is no requirement for any
electrical source such as a power cord or batteries.
[Col. 1, ll. 59-66.]
Thus, the Examiner concludes:
Inasmuch as Heller (co1.3, lines 38-55) discloses
the use of any of a variety of light sources, it
would have been obvious to employ a
chemiluminescent light source because it would
have provided a light source which is a portable
source of illumination of a body cavity, is not
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013