Appeal No. 2006-2826 Page 9
Application No. 09/993,907
The hydrogel and devices disclosed by Weissleder were stated by the Examiner
to meet the structural limitations set forth in claim 1. Answer, pages 3-4. Because
these limitations were met, the Examiner properly reasoned that the degree of hydrogel
cross-linking was sufficient to cause it to be visible when under MRI.
Appellants challenged the rejection, arguing that Weissleder’s purpose in cross-
linking the hydrogel is “to ensure [its] insolubility” in order to load it with the magnetically
active labels which are detectable by MRI.” Brief, page 8, paragraphs 3-6. Once
labeled, imaging of the hydrogel is achieved because of the presence of the label, not
the hydrogel’s degree of cross-linking. Id., page 9.
We are not persuaded by this argument. The fact that a paramagnetic label was
used by Weissleder to visualize the device does not preclude the cross-linked gel from
having been sufficient by itself to have made the device visible to MRI. Weissleder’s
purpose is not relevant to the question of whether the hydrogel-coated device would
possess the claimed features, albeit unrecognized at the time.
For the reasons discussed previously, we conclude that the Examiner has
provided sufficient evidence to establish a case of prima facie anticipation, which
Appellants have not overcome. This rejection is affirmed.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007