Appeal No. 2002-1682 Page 2
Application No. 09/023,696
Claim 21, which is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal, reads as follows:
21. An ultrasound contrast agent comprising hollow microcapsules
characterized in that the microcapsules, when suspended in degassed water at 20°C to
give a homogenous microcapsule concentration of 13.0 µg/ml, have a reflectivity to 3.5
MHz ultrasound of at least -1.0 dB.
The Prior Art References
In rejecting the appealed claims on prior art grounds, the examiner relies on the
following references:
Erbel et al. (Erbel) 5,205,287 Apr. 27, 1993
Grinstaff et al. (Grinstaff) 5,498,421 Mar. 12, 1996
Sutton et al. (Sutton) 5,518,709 May 21, 1996
Klaveness et al. (Klaveness) 5,536,490 Jul. 16, 1996
Schutt et al. (Schutt) 5,605,673 Feb. 25, 1997
The Rejection
As set forth in the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 22), page 3, claims 21 through
27 stand rejected "under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) [Erbel] or 102(e) [Klaveness, Sutton, Schutt
and Grinstaff] as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious
over Erbel, (USP 5,205,287), Klaveness (USP 5,536,490), Sutton (USP 5,518,709),
Schutt (USP 5,605,673) and Grinstaff (USP 5,498,421)."
Deliberations
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation and review of the
following materials: (1) the instant specification, including Figure 1 and all of the claims
on appeal; (2) applicants' Appeal Brief (Paper No. 21) and the Reply Brief (Paper
No. 23); (3) the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 22); and (4) the above-cited prior art
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007