Appeal No. 2002-1682 Page 3
Application No. 09/023,696
references.
On consideration of the record, including the above-listed materials, we reverse
the examiner's prior art rejection.
Discussion
The examiner argues that Klaveness expressly discloses each and every
element of the claimed invention. We disagree. The examiner does not point to any
passage in Klaveness describing "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" (claim 21, emphasis added) or "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 -7.4 dB" (claim 25, emphasis added). Nor do we find any such disclosure in the
Klaveness patent. As stated by applicants, the claim limitation which specifies
reflectivity in degassed water "defines a more rigorous test than is disclosed in
Klaveness" (Paper No. 21, page 13).
Additionally, the examiner argues that Erbel, Sutton, Schutt, Grinstaff, or
Klaveness discloses microcapsules which "appear to be prepared by a process which is
the same" as the process described in applicants' specification for preparing the
claimed ultrasound contrast agent comprising hollow microcapsules (Paper No. 22,
page 5). According to the examiner, the prior art microcapsules must necessarily and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007