Appeal 2007-0565
Application 10/374,097
1 We note that the Appellants argue these claims as a group. Accordingly, we
2 select claim 1 as representative of the group.
3 The above facts show by a preponderance of substantial evidence that Rigby
4 describes applying one frequency to cut and another frequency to cauterize. Rigby
5 also teaches that simultaneous cutting and cauterization was known to and desired
6 by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Rigby describes using two pushbutton
7 switches mechanically coupled with a rocker arm to apply either of the
8 frequencies. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately
9 envisaged all four possible on or off combinations of Rigby’s two switches, and
10 would have provided for all such combinations that were desirable. Garito
11 describes both the practicality and desirability of mixing multiple frequencies to
12 blend cutting and cauterizing functions. It would have been obvious to a person of
13 ordinary skill in the art to have enabled Rigby’s multiposition switch to have both
14 switches on as one of the four modes of connection that would have been
15 immediately envisaged to achieve the resultant blend of cutting and cauterizing
16 shown as both possible and desirable by Garito.
17 Thus, the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in the rejection.
18 Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-6, 8-11, 13, 37 and 38
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Garito, Ryan, Rigby and Appellants'
20 admission that provision of an insulating choke element and of a supply conductor
21 which has a length of an odd number of quarter wavelengths is prior art.
22
23 Claims 14-16 and 39-42 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
24 Brayshaw, Garito, Ryan, Rigby and Appellants' admission that provision of an
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013