Appeal 2007-2813
Application 10/685,744
2. PRIOR ART
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Rangaswamy US 4,512,768 Apr. 23, 1985
Edwards US 6,071,280 Jun. 6, 2000
VanTassel US 6,241,710 B1 Jun. 5, 2001
Kirsch US 6,503,225 B1 Jan. 7, 2003
3. OBVIOUSNESS
Claims 1-4 and 6-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Edwards in view of VanTassel. The Examiner relies on Edwards for
disclosing
an apparatus for delivering electrical energy to tissue within a
patient, comprising: a tubular member 12 comprising a
proximal end 14, a distal end 16 having a size for insertion into
a body of a patient, and a lumen extending from the distal end
towards the proximal end (Fig. 2); and a needle 20 comprising a
distal portion extending at least partially from the lumen and
terminating in a tissue-piercing distal tip, the distal portion
comprising an electrically conductive material, thereby
providing an electrode through which electrolytic fluid may
flow for delivering electrical energy to tissue surrounding the
distal portion.
(Answer 4.) Referring to Figures 13-15, the Examiner finds that “Edwards
clearly teaches delivering fluid through pores in at least one needle” (id. at
13).
The Examiner relies on VanTassel for teaching “a needle 2, wherein
the distal portion comprises porous sintered stainless steel to allow fluid to
flow through pores in the walls of the needle shaft” (id. at 4). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious “to have made the distal portion
of the needle of Edwards et al. from porous sintered stainless steel in view of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013