Appeal No. 2001-0599 Page 2
Application No. 08/555,198
The examiner relies on the following references:
Kitrilakis et al. (Kitrilakis) 3,699,956 Oct. 24, 1972
Sakamoto et al. (Sakamoto) 4,539,234 Sep. 03, 1985
Lee 4,723,950 Feb. 09, 1988
Goldberg et al. (Goldberg) 5,100,689 Mar. 31, 1992
Dangman et al. (Dangman) 5,335,373 Aug. 09, 1994
Claims 23-26, 30, and 35-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Sakamoto.
Claims 23-26, 30, 35, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Lee.
Claims 23-27, 30, and 35-41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of Kitrilakis, Dangman, and Goldberg.
We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Background
The specification discloses that implanted medical devices are a common
source of bacterial and fungal infections, and that various methods have been
tried to prevent such infections, including coating the implanted devices with
antibiotics. See pages 3-5. “However, although antibiotic-coated medical
devices, such as those coated with minocycline and rifampicin, are very effective
against Staphylococci, their efficacy against gram-negative bacteria and
[C]andida is limited.” Id., page 5.
The specification discloses that coating medical devices with antiseptics,
rather than antibiotics, provides broader protection against infectious agents.
The coated medical device may be, e.g., a urinary catheter or vascular catheter.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007