Appeal No. 2000-0448
Application No. 08/605,765
This method has been [word obscured] surgical
practice for many years and has greatly
facilitated hemostasis. Thrombosis occurs
secondary to direct trauma of the vessel wall;
because of [the?] lesion of the vessel wall, the
occlusion is permanent . . . . Because of the
nature of the lesion, there is no risk of distal
embolization. [pages 414 to 415]
Brunelle states in the "Conclusion" (page 415):
Our results show that AC current
electrocoagulation with a bipolar electrode is
an effective way of occluding small vessels. It
is a safe, reliable, and innocuous technique.
In our experience, we have not seen distal
embolization or vessel wall perforation. AC
current electrocoagulation is faster than DC
electrocoagulation, . . . .
We consider that this disclosure by Brunelle would suggest to
one of ordinary skill in the art the use of high frequency
(Brunelle
discloses 100 KHz) AC current instead of DC in the
electrothrombosis method of Guglielmi. The skilled worker
would have been motivated to so modify the Guglielmi process
by Brunelle’s disclosure of the advantages of using AC, i.e.,
it is faster than DC, as well as being "a safe, reliable and
innocous Technique." Appellant’s argument that Guglielmi does
not teach thermally damaging the lumenal wall is not
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007