Appeal No. 2000-0448
Application No. 08/605,765
persuasive, because according to Brunelle, such damage is a
characteristic of the use of AC current, as opposed to DC.
Both AC and DC methods result in occlusion, and the fact that
AC causes injury (trauma) of the vessel wall would not have
dissuaded one of ordinary skill from using high frequency AC
in place of Guglielmi’s DC because Brunelle teaches not only
that the use of AC "is a safe, reliable, and innocuous
technique," but also "we have not seen distal embolization or
vessel wall perforation" (supra).
We therefore conclude that claims 1 and 2 are
unpatentable over Guglielmi in view of Brunelle, and will
sustain the rejection of those claims as well as of claims 6
and 7, which appellant has not grouped or argued separately.
37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007