Appeal 2006-1414
Application 10/099,381
1, ll. 52-56). See In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04, 7 USPQ2d 1673,
1680-81 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Appellants additionally argue that “the Linder device is a self
illuminating introducer that itself is introduced into an endotracheal catheter
to aid in the intubation of the catheter into the laryngeal and tracheal
passageway of a patient” (Br. 8) and that “Linder does not teach or suggest
the placement of the chemiluminescent light into the distal end of the
structure of an endotracheal tube” (id.).
The Examiner responds that “the abstract of Linder expressly
discloses the use of the device to aid in the placement of an endotracheal
catheter” (Answer 6).
We disagree with Appellants’ argument. We note that Linder
expressly discloses the desirability “that an external visual image and,
especially improved illumination, would be helpful for use in . . . medical
intubation processes” (col. 2, ll. 18-21). Specifically, Linder discloses that
“[a] self-illuminating introducer (10) . . . [comprising a chemiluminescent
light at its distal end] is inserted into an endotracheal catheter to aid in the
intubation of the catheter into the laryngeal and tracheal passageway of a
patient” (Abstract). Thus, Linder teaches the concept of providing a
chemiluminescent light into a tube to aid in the intubation of an endotracheal
device (Figure 4). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion
that one skilled in the art would have built “the chemiluminescent light
source of the endotracheal tube pf [sic, of] Heller as modified by Lonky . . .
within the endotracheal tube . . . [to] provide[ ] the light source at the distal
end of the tube . . . as taught by Linder” (Answer 4).
Regarding Lonky, Appellants argue that “there is no indication that
the [chemiluminescent] light shown in the Lonky device is strong enough to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013