Appeal No. 2006-2415 Page 16
Application No. 09/410,336
800 F.2d at 1097, 231 USPQ at 380.
As pointed out by the examiner (Answer, page 11), Barsky discloses that its
methods reliably identify and access all of the ductal networks (column 2, lines 39-42),
and are useful for introducing contrast media in imaging methods described in other
prior art (column 2, lines 8-20). As also pointed out by the examiner (Answer, page
10), Barsky discloses that once a breast duct is accessed for endoscopic examination
by non-percutaneous cannulation, “[d]esired diagnostic . . . material may then be
instilled into the duct.” Column 6, lines 54-55.
Thus, contrary to Appellants’ argument (Appeal Brief, page 17; Reply Brief,
page 8), one need not look to references other than Barsky for a teaching of introducing
diagnostic media into breast ducts. Moreover, Barsky’s disclosure of the desirability of
their methods in delivering diagnostic agents to breast ducts must be viewed in
combination with Yoshimoto’s disclosure of delivering detectable media to breast ducts
to locate cancerous lesions, and with Schmitt-Willich’s disclosure of detectable breast
cancer-specific antibody-polymer conjugates.
We agree with the examiner that, by viewing these disclosures together, one of
ordinary skill would have been motivated by Yoshimoto to use Schmitt-Willich’s cancer-
specific antibodies to detect cancer cells within breast ducts, and would have been
further motivated by the diagnostic advantages of non-percutaneous cannulation
disclosed by Barsky to have used that method in delivering the detectable diagnostic
agents to more than one breast duct. The cited combination of references therefore
suggests all claim limitations.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007