Appeal No. 2000-1359 Page 4
Application No. 08/351,613
in opposition to this rejection is directed to the following recitation in claim 79 regarding
the high pressure fluid jets issuing from the orifices in the first passage:
wherein one or more of the fluid jets emanating from said distal end of
said first passage impinges on said open distal end of said second
passage, thereby providing stagnation pressure to drive the flow of
effluent and emulsified tissue from said distal end of said second passage
towards said proximal end of said second passage.
The examiner is of the view that the jet emanating from nozzle 14 in the Plechinger
irrigating catheter and flowing into the distal end of discharge tube 18 provides
“stagnation pressure,” as required by the claim, in that it brings about the aspiration of a
suction flow volume (Answer, pages 3 and 4). The appellants argue that this is not the
case because Plechinger directs the jet into a tube that has a diffuser to generate a
suction effect, which is different than providing stagnation pressure (Brief, page 4). We
find ourselves in agreement with the examiner, and therefore we will sustain the
rejection of claim 79. Our reasoning follows.
As illustrated in Figure 3, the appellants’ invention comprises an outer sheath
102 within which is a fluid pressure supply passage 110 and an exhaust lumen 112.
The supply passage terminates at its distal end in a loop 114 that has a plurality of
discharge nozzles 116, 118 and 120 which direct fluid through an open space and into
the distal end exhaust lumen 112. As explained on page 4 of the specification, the high
pressure flow removes tissue from the body lumen or cavity in which the device is
installed “by flow generated as a result of stagnation pressure which is induced at the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007