Appeal 2006-3319
Application 10/366,585
The Examiner's basis for determining that arterial perfusion is
performed during the surgery in Langberg appears to be based on the
Examiner's equating monitoring of mitral regurgitation with arterial
perfusion (Answer 7-8). While monitoring of mitral regurgitation would
seemingly involve some assessment of flow (i.e., perfusion), through or past
the mitral valve, it is not apparent and the Examiner has not cogently
explained why this would necessarily be indicative of arterial perfusion of
the heart. As for the disclosure in paragraphs 80 and 82 of Langberg, we do
not find any mention of assessing myocardial ischemia and the Examiner has
not specifically explained where Langberg discloses doing so. We again
note that the mere capability of performing such assessment using the
echocardiography disclosed by Langberg is insufficient to establish
anticipation of the step of actually doing so. Therefore, the rejection of
claims 1-11 and 13-37 as anticipated by Langberg cannot be sustained.
The rejection based on Cohn in view of Machek
Claim 13 depends from claim 1 and further requires that the assessing
step include fractional flow reserve analysis. Machek is concerned with the
potential problem of restricting blood flow through a body vessel when an
electrode is lodged in such body vessel (Machek, col. 1, ll. 52-67). To
address that problem, Machek discloses including on the electrode a stent for
pacing and/or sensing (Machek, col. 7, ll. 7-23). While Machek might
provide suggestion to place a sensing stent or lead on the cinching device
106 of Cohn to sense blood flow in the coronary sinus to monitor for
restriction of the coronary sinus by the cinching device or its deploying
apparatus, this would not make up for the deficiency of Cohn discussed
above. Accordingly, the rejection cannot be sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013