Appeal No. 2006-1728 Παγε 9
Application No. 10/337,417
fluorocarbon lung therapy described in Schutt’s specification and
drawings with an aerosol.
Turning to Faithfull, the reference does describe lung
therapy in the form of an apparatus for administering
fluorocarbon to the lungs of a patient during partial liquid
ventilation, where the fluorocarbon is administered from a
nebulizer in the form of a mist. However, there is no prior art
cited by the examiner that shows or suggests heating or cooling a
mist before administering it to a patient, to raise or lower the
patient’s temperature. Schutt does describe heating and cooling
a liquid fluorocarbon before administering it to a patient, but
does not suggest heating and cooling a mist before administering
the mist to the patient to raise or lower body temperature.
Accordingly, even if we combined the teachings of Schutt and
Faithfull, the result would still fall short of independent
claims 1 and 8 because there is no teaching or suggestion in the
prior art for heating or cooling a mist before administering the
mist to a patient to raise or lower the patient’s body
temperature. Although the Michaels patents provide evidence of
the claimed the mist particle size and volume percentage of gas,
these references fail to make up for the basic deficiencies of
the combination of Schutt and Faithfull.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007