Appeal 2007-2813
Application 10/685,744
fluid can be perfused from an RF ablation probe with porous needle
electrodes to increase the size of the resulting ablation or provide any other
advantage associated with RF ablation probes, such as increasing the
echogenicity of the ablation probe” (id. at 8).
We are not persuaded by this argument. As pointed out by the
Examiner, Edwards, which is directed to a tissue ablation apparatus,
“teaches delivering fluid through pores in at least one needle” of the
apparatus (Answer 13). Specifically, Edwards describes including fluid
distribution ports (i.e., pores) in an electrode (i.e., a needle) of a tissue
ablation apparatus to permit the introduction of fluidic mediums, such as
electrolytic solutions, through the electrode to a desired tissue site (Edwards,
col. 8, l. 62, to col. 9, l. 2).
The Examiner is merely relying on VanTassel to describe ways of
including pores in the needle. Specifically, VanTassel describes fabricating
the distal portion of the needle from porous sintered metal, such as sintered
stainless steel (VanTassel, col. 5, ll. 41-46). It would have been obvious to
those skilled in the art to form the pores in Edwards’ apparatus by using
porous sintered metal, such as sintered stainless steel, since VanTassel
teaches that such material could be utilized in the form of a needle to deliver
fluids to tissue, providing an obvious alternative to Edwards’ hollow
needles. “The combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007).
Appellants have not demonstrated that the alleged advantages of the
combination are not predictable results.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013