Appeal No. 2001-0550
Application No. 09/030,792
Moreover, we do not agree with the examiner that Masterson’s
method necessarily includes the step of “aspirating” target
tissue from the hollow organ. A careful reading of the entire
paragraph that includes the portion of Masterson’s disclosure
referred to by the examiner (i.e., column 11, lines 20-25) makes
clear that vacuum generating step described therein relates to
the initial filling of the uterine cavity with fluid prior to any
heating step.
In light of the above, the anticipation rejection of claim
1, as well as claims 8 and 15 that depend therefrom, based on
Masterson cannot be sustained.
The anticipation/obviousness rejection of claims
1, 2, 9 and 11 based on Spina
Spina pertains to a procedure for intralenticular cataract
therapy which involves introducing a concentrated solution of a
trypsin enzyme into the cataractous lens, allowing sufficient
time (e.g., 12-96 hours) for the enzymatic digestion of the lens,
and then removing the softened or liquefied lens by conventional
aspiration and irrigation techniques. Column 1, lines 40-49;
column 3, lines 16-31.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007