Appeal No. 2006-1526
Application No. 09/861,815
catheter. Accordingly, it is not apparent why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have found suggestion in Schulz to provide any sensors at the proximal end of the
Shlomo catheter, let alone a plurality of such sensors.
In light of the above, we conclude that the combined teachings of Shlomo
and Schulz are insufficient to establish a prima facie case that the subject matter of
appellants’ independent claims 30, 47 and 49 would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants’ invention. It follows that we
cannot sustain the rejection of these claims or of claims 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39-43,
46, 50, 52 and 54 depending therefrom.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007