Appeal No. 2002-0910 Page 8
Application No. 09/229,855
derived from a micro-massaging effect based on ultrasonic vibrations and a massaging
effect based on the rolling of a roller” (column 1, lines 60-63). It is not apparent to us
why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found any incentive to use a roller-
shaped ultrasonic transducer as taught by Watanabe in the bandage of Fox, as the
object of the Fox bandage is to secure the transducer to the patient’s skin, while the
advantage of the ultrasonic roller taught by Watanabe is derived from rolling the
ultrasonic roller along the person’s skin to obtain the synergistic effect of massaging
from ultrasonic vibration and massaging from rolling. As for the examiner’s stated
motivation “to cover a wider area for treatment in a single application,” neither Fox nor
Watanabe provides support for any such advantage.
Likewise, even assuming that Crowley discloses a rod-shaped transducer
assembly, a point which appellants do not contest, we find no suggestion in the
teachings of Crowley of an acoustic tissue ablation catheter to modify the shape of the
ultrasonic transducer of Fox, which is used for percutaneous administration of a
medicament, not ablation of tissue. As for the examiner’s stated motivation “to cover a
wider area for treatment in a single application,” neither Fox nor Crowley provides
support for any such advantage.
For the foregoing reasons, we shall not sustain the examiner’s rejections of
claims 3-7, 11 and 13-17 as being unpatentable over either Fox in view of Watanabe or
Fox in view of Crowley.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007