Appeal No. 1999-2540
Application 08/770,411
et seq.
It is not apparent, nor has the examiner cogently
explained, why Neilson’s disclosure of a microwave urethral
catheter and its use in the treatment of prostatic tumors
would have led the artisan to conclude that the temperature of
the electrode in Imran’s radio frequency heart catheter might
rise above an undesirable level upon termination of the radio
frequency energy. Moreover, the post-cooling step taught by
Neilson to reduce edema in the prostate and eliminate the
resulting need for a urinary drain catheter has no apparent
relevance to Imran’s heart tissue ablation procedure. In this
light, we are satisfied that the combined teachings of Imran
and Neilson would not have suggested supplying the apparatus
and method disclosed by Imran with a post-cooling element and
step of the sort recited in independent claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10
and 13.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10 and 13, or of claims 3, 4,
7 through 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15 which depend therefrom, as
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007