Appeal No. 2002-0933
Application No. 09/325,944
to allow one or more of the radioactive sources (19) to pass into
the transport tube and subsequently into the patient via catheter
(10), but only after the transport tube (24) is positively
affixed to the connector port (30), i.e., the hub (26) of
transport tube (24) is substantially completely mated with and
locked firmly in the connector port (30). No such indication or
signal is provided in Rague, and the elements (78) and (80) of
Rague have no such capability. Thus, the examiner's rejection of
claim 9, and dependent claims 14 and 15, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Rague will not be sustained.
The next rejection for our review is that of claim 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rague in view of
Fischell. According to the examiner, it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a tube in Rague,
presumably tube (38), with a tapered opening as illustrated in
Figure 4A of Fischell. Claim 8 is dependent from claim 1, and
appellant points out (brief, page 11) that Fischell does not
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007