Appeal No. 1999-2539 Page 7
Application No. 08/328,895
Additionally, we find ourselves in agreement with the
appellant that the applied prior art does not teach or suggest
a method or apparatus for in vivo introduction of molecules
into living blood cells of a patient. Absent the use of
impermissible hindsight , it is our view that it would not2
have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the
applied prior art to meet the following limitations:
(1) applying time varying electric signals to the applied
inductance device to generate time varying magnetic
fields and repeatedly subject a quantity of blood flowing
past the preselected location in the selected blood
vessel to electric fields of a predetermined amplitude
and duration, induced by the time varying magnetic
fields, sufficient to make walls of preselected cells in
said quantity of blood transiently permeable to permit
the molecules to enter said preselected cells without
killing said cells (claim 1);
2 See, for example, W. L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007