Appeal No. 2005-2671
Application No. 09/971,774
for purposes of this rejection.
The examiner recognizes that Jacobi and Monson “are silent regarding the
administration of the taurolidine and/or taurultam solution by passing it through a trocar
but does clearly suggest the use of a trocar for performing the surgical procedure.”
Answer, page 6. The examiner relies on Allgood for the disclosure that “laparoscopy
typically comprises the use of a cannula inserted through a trocar for irrigation of the
surgical site” and that “[b]y definition, irrigation comprises the administration of fluid to
said site.” Answer, page 6. Thus, the examiner finds that (Id.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to administer taurolidine and/or taurultam in
the JACOBI procedure via a cannula inserted through the trocar, as
JACOBI had taught that the administration of the solution is beneficial in
the prevention of trocar metastases. Fluid delivery via a cannula through a
trocar in laparoscopy is standard procedure, as would be [sic, have been]
known to one of ordinary skill.
Appellants rely on their unsuccessful previous arguments with respect to the
combination of Jacobi and Monson, to address this rejection. Appellants further argue
only the limitation of claim 6, stating, that Allgood includes the description of a “sealing
means in the trocar to prevent the flow of fluid.” Brief, page 8. Appellants, however,
fail to acknowledge the disclosure indicated by the examiner of the use of the trocar
housing for the insertion of a suction/irrigation cannula. Answer, page 9. Thus, we are
unpersuaded by appellants’ argument and the rejection of claim 6 over Jacobi, Monson
and Allgood is affirmed. We note claim 10 includes the same claim limitation as claims
3 and 4, addressed herein. Consistent with the above discussion with respect to claims
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007