Appeal No. 2000-0180
Application No. 08/539,943
other materials” (answer, page 4).
Based on our evaluation of the collective teachings of
Samson and Goy from the perspective of one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of appellant’s invention, we are in
agreement with the examiner. Appellant’s position (brief,
pages 6-7) that Goy is limited in its teaching to providing an
additional open-ended lumen for introduction of contrast media
or drugs so as to overcome the disadvantage therein of a
catheter having a closed distal end, and thus would not have
provided any motivation, much less a suggestion, for modifying
the open-ended dilation catheter of Samson to include an
additional open-ended lumen as in Goy, is unpersuasive. In
this regard, we point to the teaching found in Goy at column
2, lines 49-52, that the catheter therein makes it possible to
carry out, independently of one another, measurements or
infusions via the additional lumen and control of the pressure
in the balloon via the first lumen. In our opinion, this
teaching in the Goy reference would have provided ample
motivation and suggestion to one of ordinary skill in the art
for providing the catheter of Samson with an additional lumen
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007