Ex Parte Zhong et al - Page 2


            Appeal No. 2006-2826                                                        Page 2              
            Application No. 09/993,907                                                                      

            The protons in the area of interest align with the magnetic field.  Id.  Radiofrequency         
            pulses are used to excite the aligned protons.  Id.  When they relax, a signal is               
            produced which is measured by the MRI device and used to produce an image of the                
            object.  Id. The environment of the protons can affect the ability of MRI to detect and         
            differentiate them from their surroundings.  Id., ¶¶ 4, 24.                                     
                   According to the specification, “[i]t is known to provide implantable or insertable      
            medical devices with a coating on a surface of the device.”  Id., ¶ 21.  The coatings can       
            carry a therapeutic agent, provide a lubricious surface to facilitate introduction of the       
            device into the patient, improve its biocompatibility, or other medical purposes.  Id.  MRI     
            has been used to guide the insertion or implantation of medical devices.  Id., ¶ 8.             
            However, most polymers utilized to coat devices “do not produce adequate signals for            
            detection by MRI techniques.”  Id.  The application provides hydrogels which facilitate         
            the visibility of medical devices upon placement into a patient.  Id., ¶ 14.                    


                                                Discussion                                                  
            Claim construction                                                                              
                   Claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, 15-38, and 69 are on appeal.  Claims 39-41, 43, 44, and            
            46-68 are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to a requirement for restriction.  Brief,       
            page 2.  There are eight prior art rejections; for each rejection, the claims stand or fall     
            together because Appellants have not separately argued the patentability of any                 
            individual claim in the grouping.  Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal which        
            reads as follows:                                                                               







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007