Appeal No. 97-0684
Application 08/171,343
balloon as an integral part of the outer tube so that balloon
portions can be readily and reliably formed (column 2, lines
12-20).
Of course, if Simpson and Sugiyama were combined in the
manner proposed by the examiner, the resulting catheter may very
well function to resist bunching up of the balloon as it is
forced through stenosis, as taught by appellant. This fact,
however, does not provide the proper motivation for combining the
teachings of these references. It is the teachings of the prior
art taken as a whole which must provide the motivation or
suggestion to combine the references. See Uniroyal, Inc. v.
Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438
(Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied 488 U.S. 825 (1988); Interconnect
Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1143, 227 USPQ 543, 551
(Fed. Cir. 1985) and In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442-43, 230
USPQ 313, 315-16 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, only appellant has
suggested a two tube, two lumen balloon catheter having the outer
tube terminating proximally of the distal end of the catheter and
being attached to the inner tube to resist axial telescoping of
the tubes with respect to each other when the catheter is
advanced against a resistance at the distal region of the
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007