Appeal No. 2001-1621 Page 6
Application No. 09/111,308
of Avitall does not teach or disclose the actual diameter of the tubular electrodes 1363
or the actual spacing between electrodes that are separated by an arc of at least about
180 degrees and facing each other across an area of tissue with no portions of the
catheter body or other electrodes therebetween. Without such teachings, it is our view
that the teachings of Avitall are insufficient to establish that the electrode array loop
shown in Figures 6A-6D of Avitall inherently meets the claim limitation that a pair of
electrodes separated by an arc of at least about 180 degrees and facing each other
across an area of tissue with no portions of the catheter body or other electrodes
therebetween are sized and spaced such that a substantially continuous lesion will be
formed across the area of tissue between the electrodes in response to simultaneous
transmission of energy from each of the electrodes into the tissue area to an indifferent
electrode. While this may be possible, this is not sufficient for an anticipation rejection.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 50,
and claims 51 to 60 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
3 While the teachings of Avitall may be sufficient to determine the diameter of electrodes 36 in the
embodiment shown in Figures 1A-2E, the teachings of Avitall are not sufficient to determine the diameter
of electrodes 136 in the embodiment shown in Figures 6A-6D. It is impermissible under 35 U.S.C. § 102
to infer that the diameters or other dimensions of electrodes 136 or equal to the diameters or other
dimensions of electrodes 36 unless specifically taught by Avitall.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007