Ex Parte Ratnakar

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 9, 2018

12172237 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 9, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/172,237 07/13/2008
105518 7590 07/11/2018
JDM Patent Law PLLC
6801 Kenilworth Ave, Suite 120
Riverdale Park, MD 20737
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nitesh Ratnakar
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
RATN0002 4552
EXAMINER
LEUBECKER, JOHN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3779
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/11/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
jma@jdmpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NITESH RATNAKAR. 1
Appeal2017-006012
Application 12/172,237
Technology Center 3700
Before DONALD E. ADAMS, JOHN E. SCHNEIDER and
DAVID COTTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHNEIDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to dual
view endoscope which have been rejected as obvious. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
"Endoscopes are used to perform a variety of surgical procedures.
Endoscopes currently in use only provide forward view of hollow organ."
1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as the inventor Nitesh
Ratnakar. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-006012
Application 12/172,237
Spec. 1. The present specification discloses an endoscope which allows for
simultaneous views both forward and rearward. Id.
Claims 41, 48-50, and 61 2 are on appeal. Claims 41 and 48 are the
sole independent claims and read as follows:
41. An endoscope, comprising:
a shaft extending along a longitudinal axis, having a
cylindrical distal end and a proximal end, with the distal end
and the proximal end defining a hollow channel therethrough;
a first imaging assembly disposed near the distal end of
the shaft, the first imaging assembly having a first lens and a
first illumination means having a first light source, the first lens
facing a forward view direction in receiving images;
a catheter receivable in the hollow channel and
independently extendable and retractable along the longitudinal
axis inside the hollow channel, the catheter having an actuatable
distal section and a proximal section, the distal section having a
bending part and a tip and configured to cause the tip to achieve
retro flexion when actuated;
a second imaging assembly coupled to the tip of the
catheter and having a second lens and a second illumination
means, the second illumination means having a remote light
source remotely disposed away from the tip of the catheter, a
light output port disposed on the tip of the catheter, a light
guide having a path extending from the remote light source to
the light output port inside and along the catheter; and
a light interference prevention means configured to
substantially prevent or maximally reduce light interference at
least one of between the first lens of the first image assembly
and the second illumination means of the second imaging
assembly and between the second lens of the second imaging
assembly and the first illumination means of the first imaging
assembly, when the tip of the catheter is extended from the
2 Claims 62---66 are pending in the application but have been withdrawn from
consideration. Final Act. 1.
2
Appeal2017-006012
Application 12/172,237
hollow channel to achieve retro flexion so as to cause the
second lens to face a rearview direction in receiving images;
wherein the light interference prevention means
comprises a rearv 1 ew interference blocking device disposed on
the path of the light guide of the second illumination means, the
rearview interference blocking device configured to at least
substantially block light interference between the first lens of
the first image assembly and the second illumination means of
the second imaging assembly.
48. An endoscope, comprising:
a shaft extending along a longitudinal axis, having a
cylindrical distal end and a proximal end, with the distal end
and the proximal end defining a hollow channel therethrough,
the hollow channel surrounded by an inner surface of the shaft;
a first imaging assembly disposed near the distal end, the
first imaging assembly having a first lens and a first
illumination source, the first lens facing a forward direction in
rece1vmg images;
a catheter receivable in the hollow channel and
extendable and retractable along the longitudinal axis inside the
hollow channel, the catheter having an actuatable distal section
and a proximal section, the distal section having a bending part
and a tip and configured to cause the tip to achieve retro flexion
when actuated;
a second imaging assembly operatively disposed on the
tip of the catheter so as to face a rear view direction in receiving
images when the tip of the catheter is extended from the hollow
channel to achieve retro flexion, the second imaging assembly
having a second lens, a second illumination source and a
polarizer set of at least one polarizing filter applied to at least
one of the second lens and the second illumination source to
cause selective passage of light; and
at least one stabilization device structured to stabilize
movement of the catheter inside the hollow channel when the
tip of the catheter is extended from the hollow channel to
achieve retro flexion, the at least one stabilization device
comprising at least one stabilization element pre-attached to the
3
Appeal2017-006012
Application 12/172,237
inner surface surrounding the hollow channel and configured to
engage the catheter so as to stabilize movement of the catheter.
The claims have been rejected as follows:
Claims 41 and 61 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Bayer '108 3, either alone or in view of Bayer '008. 4
Claims 48-50 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a) and
anticipated by or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Bayer '108.
Claims 48-50 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Bayer '108 in view of Maseda. 5
DISCUSSION
Claims 41 and 61
Issue
The issue with respect to this rejection is whether a preponderance of
the evidence supports the Examiner's conclusion that the subject matter of
claims 41 and 61 would have been obvious over Bayer '108 combined with
Bayer '008.
The Examiner finds that Bayer '108 teaches an endoscope with a first
imaging assembly at one end which comprises a first lens and a first
illumination means where the first lens faces forward. Final Act. 2. The
Examiner finds that the catheter of Bayer '108 also includes a second
3 Bayer et al., US 2008/0130108 Al, published June 5, 2008 ("Bayer '108").
4 Bayer et al., US 2007 /0177008 Al, published Aug. 2, 2007 ("Bayer '008").
5 Maseda et al., US 7,918,783 B2, issued Apr. 5, 2011 ("Maseda").
4
Appeal2017-006012
Application 12/172,237
imaging assembly comprising a second lens and a second illumination
means. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Bayer '108 teaches that the
illumination source for the first imaging assembly can be with either an LED
or a remote light source that directs light to a light port via a fiber optic
guide. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Bayer teaches that the
illumination means for the second imaging assembly can be an LED. Id.
The Examiner goes on to find that both Bayer '108 and Bayer '008 teach the
use of a remote light source and a fiber optic guide as a way to provide
illumination to an imaging assembly. Final Act. 4.
The Examiner concludes
In view of knowledge available to one of ordinary skill in
the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to have substituted fiber optic light guides and an
external light source for the LED (70) of Bayer et al. (' 108) as
taught by Bayer et al. ('008) to achieve the predictable result of
providing illumination to the field of view of the second
imaging assembly. In view of the teachings of Bayer et al.
('008) it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to output light from the second illumination means at
the tip of the catheter as an alternative to output at the curved
portion of the shaft. Given the obvious use of optical fibers and
a remote light source as the second illumination means, one of
ordinary skill would obviously recognize that the teaching in
[0064] of Bayer et al. ('108) to put the polarizing light filter in
the remote light source would equally apply to the fiber light
guide/remote source substituted into the second imaging
assembly. This would clearly eliminate the need for polarizing
filter (78) as being attached at the tip of the catheter since the
light will be polarized by the source.
Final Act. 4--5.
5
Appeal2017-006012
Application 12/172,237
Appellant argues that the Examiner improperly interpreted the term
"second illumination means" as not being a means-plus function limitation.
Appeal Br. 6. Appellant contends that the presence of the additional
limitation "having a remote light source remotely disposed away from the tip
of the catheter, a light output port disposed on the tip of the catheter, a light
guide having a path extending from the remote light source to the light
output port inside and along the catheter" does not provide or describe the
structure of the illumination means. Id.
Appellant argues that Bayer '108 and Bayer '008 do not teach or
suggest the illumination means called for in the present claims and, in fact
teach away for the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant argues that
Bayer teaches the use of a direct light source and does not suggest the use of
a light guide coupled with a remote light source. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant
also argues that neither Bayer reference teaches the use of a remote light
source in connection with the retro-flexion configuration recited in the
claims. Appeal Br. 11.
Findings of Fact
We adopt the Examiner's findings as our own, including with regard
to the scope and content of, and motivation to modify or combine, the prior
art. The following findings are included for emphasis and reference
purposes.
FF 1. Bayer '108 teaches an endoscope having an auxiliary imaging
device which extends out from the end of the endoscope and faces rearward
so as to provide a retrograde view of the area being examined. Bayer '108 ,r
43.
6
Appeal2017-006012
Application 12/172,237
FF2. As shown in figure 5 of Bayer '108, the auxiliary imaging
device comprises an imaging component 64 and an auxiliary light source 70.
Bayer '108 ,r 39
FiG. 5
Figure 5 of Bayer '108 shows a perspective view of the distal end of an
endoscope with primary and auxiliary imaging devices.
FF3. Bayer '108 teaches that the light sources for the main imaging
device may be either light emitting diodes (LEDs) or fiber optic delivery of
light from an external source. Bayer '108 ,r 27.
FF4. Bayer '008 discloses an endoscope with an auxiliary imaging
device having a light source which provides illumination for the auxiliary
imaging device. The light source used to illuminate the auxiliary imaging
device may be LEDs or fiber optic bundles which deliver light from an
external source. Bayer '008 ,r 65.
7
Appeal2017-006012
Application 12/172,237
FF5. The Specification teaches the use of a rear illumination bulb in
the rear illumination module to provide light for the rear image module.
Spec. 9-10.
FF6. The Specification teaches that the 'light source can instead be
disposed remote from the distal tip of the endoscope/rear view module;
having light guide means between the light source and light output port at
the end of the endoscope/rear view module. Such an arrangement is known
in the prior art and does not merit further detailed discussion. Spec. 18
Principles of Law
[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie
case ofunpatentability. If that burden is met, the burden of
coming forward with evidence or argument shifts to the
applicant.
After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant
in response, patentability is determined on the totality of the
record, by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration
to persuasiveness of argument.
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Use of the term "means" in a claim limitation creates a
presumption that section 112, paragraph 6 has been invoked,
but that presumption may be rebutted if the properly construed
claim limitation itself recites sufficiently definite structure to
perform the claimed function. Conversely, absence of the word
"means" creates a presumption that section 112, paragraph 6
has not been invoked, and that presumption may likewise be
rebutted if the claim limitation is determined not to recite
sufficiently definite structure to perform the claimed function.
Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
2000) ( citation omitted).
8
Appeal2017-006012
Application 12/172,237
Construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is a two-step
process. First, the claim must be analyzed to determine whether the claim
language actually invokes the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
paragraph. See Envirco Corp. v. Clestra Cleanroom, Inc., 209 F.3d 1360,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("If a claim element contains the word 'means' and
recites a function, th[ e] court presumes that element is a means-plus-function
element under§ 112, ,r 6 .... That presumption falls, however, if the claim
itself recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function."). The
second step is to "determine what structures have been disclosed in the
specification that correspond to the means for performing that function."
Kemco Sales, Inc., 208 F.3d at 1361.
"The prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not
constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such
disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution
claimed." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Analysis
We find that the Examiner has established that the subject matter of
the claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made over Bayer '108 combined with Bayer '008.
Appellant has not produced evidence showing, or persuasively argued, that
the Examiner's determinations on obviousness are incorrect. Only those
arguments made by Appellant in the Briefs have been considered in this
Decision. Arguments not presented in the Briefs are waived. See 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015). We have identified claim 41 as representative;
9
Appeal2017-006012
Application 12/172,237
therefore, claim 61 falls with claim 41. We address Appellant's arguments
below.
Appellant begins by arguing that the Examiner improperly interpreted
claim 41 as not reciting a means-plus-function limitation for the term
"second illumination means." Appeal Br. 6-8, Reply Br. 4--5. Appellant
contends that the claim does not recite the structure that corresponds to the
illumination means in the claim, thus it is improper not to construe the claim
as invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(±). Id. Appellant contends that neither Bayer
'108 nor Bayer '008 teach a second illumination means as recited in the
claims. Appeal Br. 8-10, Reply Br. 5---6.
We have considered Appellant's arguments and find them
unpersuasive. Although claim 41 recites a second illumination means, the
claim goes on to recite
the second illumination means having a remote light source
remotely disposed away from the tip of the catheter, a light
output port disposed on the tip of the catheter, a light guide
having a path extending from the remote light source to the
light output port inside and along the catheter.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App'x.) We agree with the Examiner that the
additional language recites definite structures which perform the claimed
function. Ans. 12. Thus, the Examiner properly interpreted the claim
limitation as not involving a means-plus-function limitation.
However, even if Appellant's position were correct, it would not
change our analysis. When an applicant uses mean-plus-function limitations
in the claim, the specification must provide structures for performing the
recited function. Kemco Sales, Inc., 208 F.3d at 1361. The present
Specification recites two structures for illuminating the region examined by
10
Appeal2017-006012
Application 12/172,237
the second imaging assembly, a rear illumination bulb and a remote light
source coupled with a light guide and a light output port. FF5 & 6. Given
the structure already recited in claim 41, construing the "second illumination
means" to require the corresponding structure described in the Specification
- i.e., either a light bulb or a remote light source coupled with a light guide
and a light output port - would not distinguish the claimed endoscope over
the cited art.
The Bayer references both teach the use of a remote light source with
a light guide as an illumination means. FF2--4. Bayer ''008 specifically
teaches the use of such an illumination device with an auxiliary imaging
device which is the same as the second imaging assembly recited in the
present claims. FF4. As the Examiner points out, Bayer '008 teaches that
"the light source [147] may be placed at any other suitable position, such as
on the rear facing end of the auxiliary imaging device, [142] as shown in
FIG. 11." Ans. 16, quoting Bayer '008 ,r 65, emphasis omitted. Figure 11 is
shown below:
: !O
\
14;; \
11
Appeal2017-006012
Application 12/172,237
Figure 11 of Bayer '008 shows Bayer's auxiliary imaging device. Bayer
goes on to teach that while the light source 147 may be an LED,
"[a]ltematively, fiber optic bundles may be used to deliver light from an
external light source to the distal region of the imaging catheter." Ans. 17
( emphasis omitted). We agree with the Examiner that one skilled in the art
would interpret this teaching to mean a configuration similar to the shown in
the annotated Figure 11 below:
Figure 11 of Bayer '008 (as annotated by the Examiner) shows the
placement of fiber optics. Ans. 17.
Appellant contends that Bayer '008 teaches away from the claimed
second illumination means. Appeal Br. 9--10. We are not persuaded. As
demonstrated above, Bayer '008 explicitly teaches the claimed second
illumination means. Appellant has not shown any teaching in the references
which discredits, criticizes or discourages the use of a remote light source
coupled with a light guide. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1301.
12
Appeal2017-006012
Application 12/172,237
Appellant contends that the teachings of the Bayer references with
respect to a second illumination means are too general for one skilled in the
art to create the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 10, Reply Br. 6. Again we
find this argument unpersuasive. Bayer '008 specifically teaches that the
light source associated with the auxiliary imaging device can be a remote
light source coupled with an optical fiber bundle. FF4. This is similar to the
guidance given by the present Specification and the wording of claim 41.
FF6, Appeal Br. 14. As demonstrated above, the guidance given in Bayer
'008 would lead one skilled in the art to the same configuration as recited in
claim 41 and 61.
Conclusion
We conclude that a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's conclusion that the subject matter of claim 41 and 61 would
have been obvious over Bayer '108 combined with Byer '008.
Claims 48-50-Bayer '108
Issue
The issue with respect to this rejection is whether a preponderance of
the evidence supports the Examiner's conclusion that claims 48-50 are
anticipated by or obvious over Bayer '108.
The Examiner finds that Bayer '108 discloses an endoscope having
the features recited in claim 48 including a stabilization device structured to
stabilize the movement of a catheter inside the hollow channel of the
endoscope when the catheter is extended from the hollow channel to achieve
retro flexion. Final Act. 6. The Examiner interprets the teaching in Bayer
13
Appeal2017-006012
Application 12/172,237
'008 that the term mechanical engagement arrangements implies that two
elements are engaged, one on the imaging assembly and the other in the
channel. Id.
Alternatively, the Examiner finds that such an arrangement would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id at 6-7. The
Examiner concludes
Since there were only two potential options of where to attach
the stabilizing mechanisms, one being disclosed by Bayer et al.,
a person with ordinary skill would have had good reason to
pursue the other limited number of options within his or her
technical grasp. Where there is a limited universe of potential
options, the selection of any particular option would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Jones, 412 F.2d
241, 162 USPQ 224 (CCPA 1969). The Examiner takes the
position that such repositioning of the mechanisms would not
require experimentation, or any more technical skill than that
required to use such mechanisms in the first place. The reversal
of components in a prior art reference, where there is no
disclosed significance to such reversal, is a design consideration
within the skill in the art. In re Gazda, 219 F .2d 449, 104
USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86
USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). It therefore would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art, given the disclosure of Bayer
et al., to dispose the mechanisms in the channel ( which would
require that they are associated with the inner surface of the
channel) instead of on the imaging assembly itself in order to
perform the predictable result of stabilizing the imaging
assembly within the channel.
Id at 7.
Appellant argues that the teachings of Bayer '108 does not teach or
suggest a stabilization device attached to the inner surface of the hollow
channel. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant also contends that the Examiner has
14
Appeal2017-006012
Application 12/172,237
improperly engaged in hindsight in concluding that Bayer '108 teaches
placement on the stabilizing mechanism in the channel. Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant contends that Bayer discloses only one viable option for placing
the stabilizing mechanism- on the auxiliary imaging device. Appeal Br. 8,
Reply Br. 6-7.
Findings of Fact
FF7. Bayer '108 teaches
In yet a further alternate embodiment, the distal end of
the imaging assembly includes a mechanism that can fix the
position of the imaging assembly in the channel of the insertion
tube. Such a mechanism may include the use of inflatable
balloons, springs that are actuated via guide-wires, mechanical
engagement arrangements, or frictional methods such as large
diameter compressive regions incorporating rubber or foam.
Bayer' 108 ,r 69.
Principles of Law
Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it
takes into account only knowledge which was within the level
of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made
and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's
disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209,212 (CCPA 1971).
Analysis
We agree with, and adopt, the Examiner's findings and conclusion
that the appealed claims are obvious over the cited prior art references. We
address the arguments raised by Appellant below.
15
Appeal2017-006012
Application 12/172,237
Appellant contends that the teaching of Bayer is too generic and only
teaches placing the engagement mechanism on the polarizing cap of the
auxiliary imaging device. Appeal Br. 11-12. We are not persuaded.
Bayer '108 clearly teaches an engagement mechanism which involves
both the auxiliary imaging device and the channel. FF 1-FF3, FF7. We
agree with the Examiner that the term "mechanical engagement
arrangement" implies the presence of two elements to be engaged, one on
the auxiliary imaging device on the other in the channel. Ans. 19-20. We
also agree with the Examiner that the related paragraphs of Bayer '108
support this conclusion. Id.
Alternatively, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art to place the engagement mechanism on the
inside of the channel. Bayer discloses a stabilizing the auxiliary imaging
device by fixing the device in the channel. FF7. This presents only two
choices for locating the engagement means, either in the auxiliary imaging
device or in the channel. We agree with the Examiner that placement of the
engagement mechanism on the inner surface of the channel would have been
obvious. Ans. 20.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has improperly engaged in
hindsight in finding that Bayer teaches placement on the stabilizing
mechanism in the channel. Appeal Br. 12.
We are unpersuaded. Bayer specifically teaches an arrangement
where the stabilization is achieved by the auxiliary imaging device engaging
the channel. FF7. As discussed above, this teaching would lead one skilled
in the art to place the stabilizing mechanism either on the auxiliary imaging
16
Appeal2017-006012
Application 12/172,237
device or in the channel. The Examiner has only relied on the teachings of
the art to make the rejection. Appellant has pointed to no specific teaching
in the present specification that the Examiner improperly used in making the
rejection.
Conclusion
We conclude that a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's conclusion that claim 48 is anticipated by or obvious over Bayer
'108. Claims 49 and 50 have not been separately argued and therefore fall
with claim 48. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 48-50-Bayer '108 combinedwithMaseda
Issue
The issue with respect to this rejection is whether a preponderance of
the evidence supports the Examiner's conclusion that the subject matter of
claims 48-50 would have been obvious over Bayer '108 combined with
Maseda.
As an alternative to the rejection based on Bayer '108 discussed
above, the Examiner has supplemented the teachings of Bayer '108 above by
finding that Maseda teaches a mechanical engagement arrangement
comprising a locking member on the instrument shaft and a mating member
attached to the inner surface of the channel. Final Act. 9. The Examiner
concludes
Given this knowledge in the art, it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill to have provided the mechanical
engagement arrangement of Maseda et al. as the mechanical
[sic] engagement arrangement of Bayer et al. in order to
17
Appeal2017-006012
Application 12/172,237
stabilize the imaging assembly in a desired orientation with
respect to the channel, thereby stabilizing the imaging assembly
with respect to the distal end of the endoscope shaft.
Id at 10.
Appellant contends that the lock and key mechanism of Maseda
stabilizes the instrument as required by the claims, but is used to help the
clinician know the particular orientation of the instrument. Appeal Br. 12.
Analysis
Again, we agree with, and adopt, the Examiner's findings and
conclusion that the appealed claims are obvious over the cited prior art
references. We address the argument raised by Appellant below.
Appellant contends that Maseda does not tech that the lock and key
mechanism can be used to stabilize the second imaging assembly. Appeal
Br. 11. We are unpersuaded.
As the Examiner explained in the Answer, while Maseda does not use
the term stabilize,
By engaging and locking the instrument shaft and channel from
relative rotational movement, these features do exactly what
Appellant's claimed stabilization device is defined to do: "to
stabilize movement of the catheter inside the hollow channel".
Appellant offers no reasonable explanation as to why the
engaging features of Maseda et al. cannot be construed as a
stabilization device.
Ans. 21.
This interpretation is confirmed by comparing the disclosure and
drawings of the present Specification with the teachings of Maseda. Figure
18
Appeal2017-006012
Application 12/172,237
42A of the present Specification, reproduced below, shows a "locking
contraption" used to stabilize the rear view assembly. Spec. 24.
~--- ... ...::· ....
Figure 42A shows a locking contraption used to stabilize the second imaging
assembly. Id. The Specification teaches that
Id.
Upon exit from the hollow channel of the endoscope (25) /
endoscope polarizing cap (106); the 'V' shaped locking
contraption ( 420) resumes its 'V' shape; following which the
rear view catheter (51) is gently pulled back to enable the 'V'
shaped locking contraption ( 420) to engage with corresponding
mating contraption ( 421 ), thus stabilizing the rear view catheter.
This operates in a manner similar to the lock and key mechanism
disclosed in Maseda. As shown in Figures 3 and 3a ofMaseda, the channel
is designed to have a non-circular region, in this case a hexagonally shaped
reg10n.
19
Appeal2017-006012
Application 12/172,237
.. ' ' ..... - - . . . . . - - ' ~ .. ' ' ., . -- ... ,__. ______ _
68
. ---: :-:-:-:::· :: :- .-: :- -:-:-: :-:•:• :-:-:-:-:•: -:-: ,:-; :-:-:-:- :-:-:•:•:•. :-:-:-:-:-:-:,-:,:,:,:,:-:-:-:-:-:•:• :-:·:·.·: '.·>·1
38 3A...._,
\ .. :·:.·.··-·- -72
r • • • , r • , r ,, , ,- ,
~ .. , ' ' ..... ~ .. ' , .... '
~ •' • • r • • ,• • ' • • • ,• ' ,.
. . . ' ~ - ' .. ' . '
,:.·;:: .. ·. . ·;::::
.. - ._._/ .·:.-.- ..
. ' - . .. '.-.,. ·'. . .. . . ,· . ~ , . . '..... '. -- ... . " .. ' ' ~ . - - . '
' ~ - • " • • -' • < .. • ••
• • ·• • •: J. .. -~ .. ' •••
' - .. '. . . '. - .
, .. - ... ' - . ' . ' .... ~ ' , ..
\
'-72
Figures 3 and 3A of Maseda show the configuration of the inner portion of
the channel. Maseda, col. 5, 11. 4--5.
20
Appeal2017-006012
Application 12/172,237
As shown in Figures 4 and 4A of Maseda, the shaft of the instrument has a
region with a shape complementary to the non-circular region of the
channel.
114
4B · \4A
78
48 4A
:fig·ure 4
21
Appeal2017-006012
Application 12/172,237
114'\.
78
Figures 4 and 4A ofMaseda showing the configuration of the shaft of the
instrument. Id. at co 1. 5, 11. 11-18.
It would be readily apparent to one skilled in the art that when the two
non-circular regions are aligned, they would prevent movement of the shaft
relative to the channel in the same manner as the "locking contraption" of
the present invention. Preventing rotation of the shaft is the same as
stabilization as the term is used in the claims and Specification.
Conclusion
We conclude that a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's conclusion that the subject matter of claim 48 would have been
obvious over Bayer '108 combined with Maseda. Claims 49 and 50 have
not been argued separately and therefore fall with claim 48. 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
22
Appeal2017-006012
Application 12/172,237
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a).
We affirm the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a).
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
23