Appeal No. 2001-0550
Application No. 09/030,792
Appellants’ disclosure (see, for example, page 4, lines 13-16, of
the specification) makes reasonably clear that the “source of
heated solution” in question is not simply a container or
receptacle that is capable of supplying a solution at an elevated
temperature, but rather includes something (such as a heating
element) to elevate the temperature of the solution. The
examiner’s view to the contrary is arbitrary and unreasonable in
that, in effect, it renders the term “heated” in the claim
meaningless.
In that the examiner does not contend that the Dieras device
includes anything for elevating the temperature of the fluids
delivered by the lumens thereof above ambient, and in that it is
not apparent to us that any such means exist in the device of
Dieras, the examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 13, as
well as claim 14 that depends therefrom, cannot be sustained.
The anticipation rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15
based on Masterson
Masterson relates to “the field of thermal ablation where
heat is delivered to necrose or ablate a diseased body organ.
More specifically, the invention provides methods and devices for
thermally ablating hollow body organs, such as the uterus, by
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007