Appeal No. 2001-2413
Application No. 09/167,894
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Sadri, and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Sadri.
Attention is directed to the appellants’ main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 14 and 16) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 15) for the respective positions of the appellants and the
examiner with regard to the merits of these rejections.2
DISCUSSION
Sadri discloses a device for perfusing animal organs such as
“hearts, kidneys, livers, thyroids, lungs, intestines,
pancreases, reproductive organs, brains, spleens and the like”
(column 4, lines 52 through 54). The device includes a plurality
of reservoirs 1 having a common flow-regulating valve 3, an
oxygenator 6, a heat exchanger 8, pumps 12 and 17, and various
fluid conduits for conducting the perfusate and connecting the
foregoing components in series with the target organ 15. The
heat exchanger serves to cool or warm the perfusate (see column
2 In the final rejection (Paper No. 7), the examiner also
rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over
Sadri. As this rejection has not been restated in the answer, we
assume it has been withdrawn ( see Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181
(Bd. App. 1957)).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007