Appeal No. 2002-1682 Page 5
Application No. 09/023,696
suspended in degassed water at 20°C to give a homogenous microcapsule
concentration of 13.0 µg/ml, they have a reflectivity to 3.5 MHz ultrasound of at least
-1.0 dB or at least -7.4 dB. This follows, according to the examiner, "because the prior
art microcapsules are specifically prepared for use as ultrasound contrast agents which
would require such characteristics" (Paper No. 22, page 5). However, the examiner
fails to point out specific teachings in any of the cited references, or a sound rationale,
which would support that conclusion. It cannot be gainsaid that numerous ultrasound
contrast agents in the prior art have utility even though they do not possess the same
advantageous characteristics of the claimed ultrasound contrast agent. Simply stated,
the examiner has not explained how the cited prior art would have led a person having
ordinary skill from "here to there," i.e., from the prior art ultrasound contrast agents to
applicants' ultrasound contrast agent comprising hollow microcapsules having the
characteristics specified in claims 21 through 27.
The rejection of claims 21 through 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the cited prior art is reversed.
Conclusion
In conclusion, for the reasons succinctly set forth in applicants' main Brief and
Reply Brief, amplified above, we reverse the examiner's prior art rejection of claims 21
through 27.
The examiner's decision is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007