Ex Parte Goble et al - Page 2

            Appeal 2007-0565                                                                                
            Application 10/374,097                                                                          

        1                                                                                                   
        2       The Appellants invented a radio frequency electrosurgery system operating                   
        3   electrosurgical instruments at ultrahigh frequencies (UHF).  An understanding of                
        4   the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is                      
        5   reproduced below.                                                                               
        6          1. An electrosurgery system comprising an electrosurgical generator, a                   
        7          feed structure and an electrode assembly, the electrode assembly                         
        8          having at least one active electrode and at least one adjacent return                    
        9          electrode, each of which is coupled to the generator via the feed                        
       10          structure, wherein the generator and feed structure are capable of                       
       11          delivering radio frequency (r.f.) power to the active and return                         
       12          electrodes in lower and upper frequency ranges, the upper range                          
       13          containing frequencies at least three times the frequencies of the lower                 
       14          frequency range, and the generator and feed structure are arranged to                    
       15          deliver r.f. power to the electrodes in the lower and upper frequency                    
       16          ranges simultaneously.                                                                   
       17       This appeal arises from the Examiner’s final rejection, mailed September 7,                 
       18   2005.  The Appellants filed a brief in support of the appeal on March 22, 2006, and             
       19   the Examiner mailed an answer to the appeal brief on June 21, 2006.  A reply brief              
       20   was filed on August 21, 2006.  An oral hearing was provided on March 6, 2007.                   
       21                                                                                                   
       22                                      PRIOR ART                                                    
       23       The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the             
       24   appealed claims are:                                                                            
       25 Brayshaw  US 3,903,891  Sep.  9, 197525                                                                                                  
       26 Rosen  US 5,150,717  Sep. 29, 199226                                                                                                  
       27 Rigby  US 5,254,117  Oct. 19, 199327                                                                                                  


                                                     2                                                      


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013