Appeal No. 2004-1407
Application No. 10/057,334
cools the body to less severe temperatures during surgery (Paper
No. 12, pp. 1-2, bridging para.). We remind appellant that the
claims before us require surgery to be performed “while the
patient’s temperature is below normal body temperature” (Claims 5
and 8).
We have considered the prior art for all it teaches.
Appellant has not. Clifton teaches that the body temperatures of
patients may be, and have been, lowered anywhere from moderately
to profoundly depending upon the severity and requirements of the
surgical procedure to be performed (Clifton, cols 1-3).
Moreover, Ginsburg contemplates profoundly cooling the body to
temperatures as low as OO C. (Ginsburg, col. 8, l. 45-54). Most
importantly, we have compared the prior art teachings to broadly
claimed methods wherein a patient’s temperature may be lowered to
any and all levels below body temperature. Appellant has not.
Appellant’s criticisms of the Board’s findings that the
cited prior art references are all analogous to the claimed
subject matter and/or the Board’s determinations that the claimed
subject matter would have been obvious in view of combined prior
art teachings as a whole neither consider the full scope and
content of the claimed subject matter nor fairly compare the
breadth of that subject matter to all the prior art teaches.
Accordingly, appellant’s explanations why the Board purportedly
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007