Appeal No. 2000-0827
Application 08/466,104
gases are among only ten gases recited in the originally filed
claims, of which claims 5, 11, and 12 read: 4
5. Contrast media of claim 1 wherein the gas is
octafluoropropane.
11. Contrast media of claim 1 wherein the gas is
decafluorobutane.
12. Contrast media of claim 1 wherein the gas is
dodecafluoropentane.
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with Appellant that the
application as filed adequately demonstrates a preference for
contrast agents containing the three claimed gases.
The examiner asserts that the application discloses "at
least eleven different approaches" suitable for forming the
microbubbles in Appellant's contrast agents (Answer at 7,
ll. 1-4). Assuming for the sake of argument that the examiner is
correct on this point, that number is not, in our view,
sufficient to satisfy the examiner's initial burden of proof to
show a lack of written description support using the Ruschig
rationale, since the claimed gases have been shown to be
preferred gases. In any event, for the following reasons the
4 The gases are recited in the other original claims are
sulfur hexafluoride (claim 3), hexafluoropropylene (claim 4),
hexafluoroethane (claim 6), octafluoro-2-butene (claim 7),
hexafluoro-2-butyne (claim 8), hexafluorobuta-1,3-diene
(claim 9), and octafluorocyclobutane (claim 10).
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007