Appeal No. 2005-2054
Application No. 10/425,137
because there is no reason to combine the cold fluid of Dae
with the warming device of Taheri as proposed, for the
simple reason that Taheri is directed to warming a
hypothermic patient, a purpose that would be confounded by
modifying it with the cold fluid of Dae. Hence, the
proposed modification is improper under MPEP § 2143.01
(citing In re Gordon).
This argument also is not convincing. Contrary to the
appellants’ belief, the teaching or suggestion in Dae regarding
heat exchange fluid is applicable to the heat exchange catheter
of Taheri for two reasons. First, Dae expressly teaches that his
heat exchange catheter may be used for warming as well as cooling
a patient (e.g., see lines 6-12 in column 1, lines 10-13 in
column 2, lines 12-17 in column 10, and lines 36-49 in column
27). Since both Taheri and Dae envision using their respective
catheters for warming a patient, Dae’s teachings and suggestions
regarding catheter heat exchange fluid (e.g., again see lines 12-
17 in column 10 as well as lines 42-46 in column 23) are not
incompatible with Taheri as the appellants contend. The second
reason these references are not incompatible is that the
disclosure of Dae as a whole including the teachings specifically
identified above would have suggested to one having an ordinary
level of skill in this art the desirability of providing Taheri’s
heat exchange catheter system with heat exchange fluid of the
type taught or suggested by Dae in order to thereby use this
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007