Appeal No. 2000-0448
Application No. 08/605,765
Claim 3 reads:
3. The method of claim 1 wherein the
applying step comprises:
advancing an RF device through the lumen to
the target site; and
engaging at least one electrode on the RF
device against the vaso-occlusive element which
has already been deployed.
Appellant argues that this claim is patentable in that neither
Guglielmi nor Brunelle discloses engaging an electrode against
an already deployed vaso-occlusive element (coil). We agree
with this argument, which has not been responded to by the
examiner. Guglielmi positions the electrode and coil (e.g.,
52 and 56) into position together as a single unit, and there
is no teaching or suggestion in either reference that the
electrode be advanced and engaged against an already-deployed
coil, as claimed. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 3, and
of claims 4 and 5 dependent thereon, will not be sustained.
Likewise, since independent claim 10 contains similar
limitations, we will not sustain its rejection, nor the
rejection of claims 11 to 18 dependent thereon.
Claims 8 and 9 recite that the electrical resistance of
the vaso-occlusive element is "substantially less than" (claim
8), or "substantially equal to or slightly less than" (claim
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007