Appeal 2006-3319
Application 10/366,585
The anticipation rejection based on Langberg
Langberg, like Cohn and Appellants, discloses a method of implanting
a mitral valve therapy device (mitral annuloplasty and cardiac reinforcement
device 40) in a patient's coronary sinus and tightening the implant (device
40) around the mitral annulus (Langberg Abstract, ¶¶ 47, and 69-74) and
evaluating the effectiveness of the device by monitoring the degree of
regurgitation during the step of tightening the implant (Langberg ¶ 79).
According to Langberg, the implant should not be reconfigured to an extent
sufficient to produce mitral stenosis or any flow limitation of hemodynamic
significance. Id. The mitral regurgitation can be monitored by
transesophageal, surface, or intracardiac echocardiography, fluoroscopy
using radiocontrast in the left ventricle, or left atrial or pulmonary capillary
wedge pressure tracings (Langberg ¶ 80). Langberg also discloses the step
of measuring residual regurgitation and other hemodynamic functions
following implantation to help formulate appropriate drug therapy for
treating congestive heart failure (Langberg ¶ 82). Langberg does not specify
what such "other hemodynamic functions" are monitored. Langberg also
makes reference to pacing source or diagnostic instruments (Langberg ¶ 84).
Appellants argue that Langberg does not discuss arterial perfusion of
the heart (Appeal Br. 8). The Examiner contends "arterial perfusion is
performed during the surgery and after the implantation and myocardial
ischemia can be assessed with echocardiography or fractional flow reserve
analysis can be assessed via pressure measurements, paragraphs, 80,82"
(Answer 5). Accordingly, the issue presented in the appeal of the rejection
of claims 1-11 and 13-37 as anticipated by Langberg is whether Langberg
discloses assessing arterial perfusion of the heart.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013