Appeal No. 2006-1031
Application No. 09/774,278
administration.” Col. 14, lines 62-65. θstensen describes that, “it may be that the
ultrasound pulses disrupt the encapsulating membrane and so enhance growth of the
dispersed gas through inward diffusion of diffusible component in to the thus-exposed
gas phase.” Column 13, lines 4-8. Furthermore, Examples 2 and 4 of ~stensen
confirm that when the temperature is raised, there is a significant increase in the size of
the microbubbles, i.e., the gas content of the microbubbles.
In view of the above, we do not find the examiner has established that the
microbubbles of θstensen remain in liquid form throughout the performance of the
imaging steps of the disclosed method, or that the microbubbles of θstensen do not
contain more than 10% gas at any phase of the method in which the liquid microbubbles
are used.
Nor do we find the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness
on the evidence before us. With respect to the obviousness rejection, the examiner
acknowledges that, “θstensen teaches the use of perfluoroctane, but fails to exemplify it.
Ostensen also fails to administer his emulsion system to a human.” Answer, page 7.
The examiner concludes, “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of [the] invention to modify θstensen’s method and employ other art
equivalent perfluorocarbon liquids such as perfluoroctane, in humans because the
ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in
observing optimal clinical results in humans as evident in dogs.” Id.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007