Ex Parte Charlton - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2005-0943                                                        
          Application No. 09/947,943                                                  

          (specification, page 2).  Representative claim 1 reads as                   
          follows:1                                                                   
               1. An esophageal balloon catheter, comprising:                         
               (a) a shaft having a proximal end, a distal end and a                  
          longitudinal length, and defining a gastric lumen and an                    
          inflation lumen;                                                            
               (b) a single inflatable balloon, the inflatable balloon                
          sealingly attached to the shaft at a fixed longitudinal position            
          proximate the distal end of the shaft in fluid communication with           
          the inflation lumen; and                                                    
               (c) an aspiration port through the shaft between the balloon           
          and the distal end of the shaft in fluid communication with the             
          gastric lumen;                                                              
               (d) wherein the gastric lumen is not in fluid communication            
          with the inflation lumen or the balloon.                                    
                                   THE REJECTION                                      
               Claims 1 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)             
          as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,314,409 to Sarosiek et            
          al. (Sarosiek).                                                             
               Attention is directed to the brief (filed May 14, 2004) and            
          answer (mailed July 21, 2004) for the respective positions of the           
          appellant and examiner regarding the merits of this rejection.              
                                     DISCUSSION                                       
               Anticipation is established only when a single prior art               
          reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,            

               1 The term “the distance markings” in claim 9 lacks a proper           
          antecedent basis, an informality which should be corrected in the           
          event of further prosecution.                                               
                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007