Appeal 2006-1414
Application 10/099,381
In light of the discussion above, we are convinced that the Examiner
has provided a prima facie case of obviousness for the § 103 rejection of
claim 1 over Heller, Lonky, and Linder, which Appellants have failed to
rebut with argument or evidence of nonobviousness. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Heller in view of Lonky and Linder.
Regarding independent claim 7, Appellants argue that “the collection
of references does not suggest a reason to shine a chemiluminescent light
through optic fibers distal of an endotracheal tube” (Br. 9).
According to the Examiner, “Heller (fig.4) . . . discloses optical fibers
(15) implanted in the endotracheal tube wall adapted and positioned to shine
light distally of the distal end of the endotracheal tube” (Answer 4).
Thus, the Examiner’s position is that Heller provides the teaching of
shining a light through optical fibers distally of the distal end of the
endotracheal tube. As discussed above, the Examiner relies on Lonky for
the suggestion that “it would have been obvious to employ a
chemiluminescent light source” in place of Heller’s light source (Answer 4).
The Examiner also relies on Linder to “teach[ ] a chemiluminescent light
source . . . for the purpose of illuminating tissues into which intubation is
intended” (Answer 4).
We note that the chemiluminescent light source used in Lonky’s
endoscope can alternatively “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). Based on this
disclosure in combination with the teachings of Heller and Linder, we agree
with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness regarding claim 7 for
reasons analogous to those discussed above.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013