Ex Parte Simon et al - Page 6

                  Appeal 2006-1414                                                                                         
                  Application 10/099,381                                                                                   
                         The Examiner responds that “Heller (fig.4) clearly illustrates light                              
                  rays shining distally . . . of the endotracheal tube.  While there is express                            
                  disclosure of light being projected in at least one lateral direction, the lateral                       
                  direction is clearly not the only direction in which light is projected as                               
                  illustrated by fig.4” (Answer 5).  According to the Examiner, “Heller (col. 3,                           
                  lines 29-37) discloses the emitter (17) being a rounded glass bead that                                  
                  projects axially beyond the end surface of the endotracheal tube . . . in a                              
                  plurality of directions which will necessarily include distal to the                                     
                  endotracheal tube” (Answer 6).                                                                           
                         In reply, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s suggestion “that Heller                            
                  . . .  teaches a distally shining light source via Figure 4, is but a desire based                       
                  upon a reading of that patent based upon a prior reading of Appellants'                                  
                  application” (Reply Br. 1).  Appellants further argue that Heller makes “no                              
                  mention of ‘axial’ light projection” (Reply Br. 2).                                                      
                         We disagree with Appellants’ argument.  Heller’s Figure 4 clearly                                 
                  supports the Examiner’s contention that Heller’s endotracheal device shines                              
                  light from a light source distally of the endotracheal tube, including an axial                          
                  direction.  Thus, contrary to Appellants’ argument, Heller expressly teaches                             
                  illumination (shining) at the distal end of the endotracheal tube.  This is                              
                  further supported by Figure 7 of Heller, which shows a bifurcated light                                  
                  emitter 17” that directs the light axially (i.e., distally) via branch 23 and                            
                  laterally via branch 22 at the distal end 11 of the endotracheal tube (col. 4, ll.                       
                  19-23).  Appellants’ argument that Heller is limited to only shining “light [so                          
                  as] to come out through the infant's neck laterally or radially” (Br. 5) is                              
                  unsupported by the disclosure of Heller.  Thus, we agree with the                                        
                  Examiner’s finding that, “[w]hile there is express disclosure [in Heller] of                             
                  light being projected in at least one lateral direction, the lateral direction is                        

                                                            6                                                              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013