Appeal No. 2004-0643
Application No. 09/682,211
The appellants argue that their direct delivery of radiation
through a capillary tube to the affected site reduces the
required radiation dose and that, therefore, a portable radiation
generator can be used (brief, page 6). Because, like the
appellants, Vali delivers radiation directly to the affected site
using a hollow fiber (col. 6, lines 38-46), Vali’s required
radiation dose likewise would be relatively small and, therefore,
a portable radiation generator would be suitable.
For the above reasons we conclude that the appellants’
claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 4, 5, 8-11, 13-15 and 18-23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Vali is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007