Appeal No. 2002-2152
Application No. 08/701,764
(citing In re Dow Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d
1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Both the suggestion and
reasonable expectation of success must be founded in the prior
art, not in applicants’ disclosure. Id.
Here, it is our judgment that the examiner has not
identified the requisite motivation, suggestion, or teaching in
the prior art references to combine the references. Moreover,
even if the references could be combined in the manner as
suggested by the examiner, the combination would not result in
the claimed invention.
Parker, the principal prior art reference, describes an
apparatus for treating tumors by low energy, highly absorbable,
polychromatic x-rays, which are produced by small x-ray micro-
tubes placed within, or adjacent to, a patient’s body in close
proximity to, or within, a tumor. (Column 1, lines 7-13.)
According to Parker, the x-ray tube may comprise an evacuated
glass tube 22, a heated filament cathode 24, and an anode 26.
(Column 7, line 68 to column 8, line 6; Figure 8a.) Parker
further discloses a liquid-cooled micro-tube assembly 84
including a filament cathode 86 supported by a filament support
structure 88 within an evacuated glass tube 90, which may be the
x-ray tube described in Figure 8a. (Column 10, lines 6-18;
Figure 10.)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007