Appeal 2006-1414
Application 10/099,381
clearly not the only direction in which light is projected as illustrated by
fig.4” (Answer 5). Like the Examiner, we find that Heller’s device also
shines or projects light distally.
Citing column 3, lines 42-46 of Linder, Appellants argue that, while
Linder is concerned with its use as an indirect transillumination device, it
does not “tell what is ‘trans-illuminated’” by the chemiluminescent light (Br.
7). According to Appellants, “[w]hat is clear, however, is that [Linder] does
not, with clarity, specify that the person using the Linder device necessarily
looks through a tissue that is back-lit by the disclosed device” (id.).
We note that The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College
Edition, (1982) defines "transillumination” as "[t]he examination of a bodily
part or organ by passing a light through its walls." Thus, one with ordinary
skill in the art would have understood that Linder’s disclosure of
transillumination necessarily refers to providing sufficient illumination to
facilitate examination of tissues by passing light through the walls of the
tissues being examined. Accordingly, we disagree with Appellants’
argument that Linder “does not, with clarity, specify that the person using
the Linder device necessarily looks through a tissue that is back-lit by the
disclosed device” (Br. 7).
We also note that both the claimed invention and Linder involve
endotracheal intubation. Since the chemiluminescent light of Linder is
suitable for transillumination in a process to aid the intubation of an
endotracheal catheter, a person with ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated based upon a reasonable expectation of success to use Linder’s
chemiluminescent light in the endotracheal tube of Heller “to locate and
position the tip of . . . [an endotracheal] tube in a body passage” (Heller col.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013