Ex parte HALLOCK et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1999-2540                                                        
          Application 08/770,411                                                      


                                    THE INVENTION                                     


               The invention relates to an apparatus and method for                   
          cooled, radio frequency generated ablation of heart tissue.                 
          Claims 1 and 6 are illustrative and read as follows:                        


               1.  A radio frequency generator and pump apparatus for                 
          cooled ablation for ablating tissue in the wall of the heart                
          of a patient, an ablation catheter comprising a flexible                    
          elongate member having proximal and distal extremities, an                  
          ablation electrode formed of a conductive material and carried              
          by the distal extremity, said ablation electrode having a                   
          cavity therein, an electrical conductor carried by the                      
          flexible elongate member and coupled to the ablation                        
          electrode, a radio frequency generator coupled to said                      
          electrical conductor, said flexible elongate member having a                
          liquid carrying lumen extending from the proximal extremity to              
          the distal extremity and opening into the cavity of the                     
          ablation electrode, a pump coupled to the liquid lumen for                  
          supplying a cooling liquid to the lumen and to the cavity of                
          the ablation electrode and automatic control means for                      
          controlling the operation of the radio frequency generator and              
          the pump to supply pre-cooling, cooling and post-cooling in                 

               (...continued)1                                                                     
          subsequent to final rejection.  The examiner and the                        
          appellants appear to agree that claims 2 and 5 as so amended                
          do not accurately reflect what was intended by the appellants.              
          See page 3 in the examiner’s answer, Paper No. 10, and page 1               
          in the appellants’ reply brief, Paper No. 12.  The                          
          discrepancies should be resolved upon return of the                         
          application to the technology center.  In the meantime, we                  
          have assumed for purposes of this appeal that claims 2 and 5                
          read as shown in the appendix to the reply brief.                           
                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007