Appeal No. 2005-2054
Application No. 10/425,137
system for both heating and cooling purposes. This obviousness
conclusion is reinforced by Dae’s teaching that his heating and
cooling functions may be performed by essentially any known heat
exchange catheter (e.g., see lines 5-17 in column 10).
In light of the foregoing, it is our determination that the
reference evidence adduced by the examiner establishes a prima
facie case of obviousness which the appellants have failed to
successfully rebut with argument or evidence of nonobviousness.
See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). We hereby sustain, therefore, the examiner’s
Section 103 rejection of claims 5-7 as being unpatentable over
Taheri in view of Dae.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007