Appeal 2007-2812
Application 10/337,236
1 because it describes every element and limitation of it (Findings of Fact
(“FF”) 8-12).
Appellants contend that, contrary to Anderson, claim 1 recites a
medical device that is magnetically navigable. According to Appellants,
“Anderson does not disclose a ‘magnetically navigable’ device whose tip
may be oriented in different directions by an external magnet, but rather a
device that is moved in only a single direction - towards a magnet” (Br. 73).
We do not find this argument persuasive. We have interpreted the
phrase “magnetically navigable” to require the guidewire to comprise a
“magnetically response element” and possess sufficient flexibility that it can
be navigated by an external magnet through a blood vessel. (See supra at p.
4-5). Anderson’s guidewire comprises a “magnetically response element”
(FF 4, 10) and is described as being guided through the throat and into
patient’s trachea using an external magnet (Anderson, at col. 6, ll. 27-46 and
Figs. 5-7; FF 6), indicating that it possesses the requisite flexibility. Thus,
we agree with the Examiner’s determination (Answer 3; FF 12) that this
structure meets the claimed limitation of “magnetically navigable device” as
we have interpreted it.
Appellants’ argument is deficient because they have not identified a
structural limitation that distinguishes the guidewire of claim 1 from the
device described in Anderson. They contend that “unlike Anderson, the
distal end [of the claimed device] may be oriented in a desired direction
other than towards the magnet by changing the direction of the magnetic
field” (Br. 7), but do not explain why Anderson’s device – which has the
3 Appeal Brief filed Nov. 15, 2006.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013