Appeal 2007-2813
Application 10/685,744
of different ‘open cell’ porous materials,” for example, porous sintered
metal, such as from stainless steel (id. at col. 5, ll. 41-46). Alternatively,
VanTassel describes creating a porous distal portion “from a non-porous
material (e.g., metal) using a cutting laser and techniques known in the art to
punch pores into the needle segment” (id. at col. 6, ll. 12-15).
We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that it would have been
prima facie obvious to form Edwards’ fluid distribution ports by either of the
techniques described in VanTassel. Specifically, we agree that it would
have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the fluid distribution ports by
utilizing a porous material, such as sintered stainless steel.
Appellants argue that VanTassel is not analogous prior art because
“VanTassel is neither in the field of the inventors’ endeavor nor is it
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventors were
concerned” (Br. 5).1 Specifically, Appellants argue that
the field of the inventors’ endeavor is the ablative treatment of
tumors . . . , whereas the field that VanTassel is concerned with
is the injection of medicaments into tissue. . . . Furthermore,
the particular problem with which the inventors were concerned
with was making therapeutic ablations more efficient . . . ,
whereas the particular problem solved by VanTassel was
providing a means for microinjecting controlled amounts of
injectate to minimize leakage otherwise due to the rapid transfer
of fluid.
(Id. at 5.)
We are not persuaded by this argument. “In order to rely on a
reference as a basis for rejection of the applicant’s invention, the reference
1 Our citations are to the “Supplemental Appeal Brief” filed September 5,
2006.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013