Ex parte HOBBS et al. - Page 3




                 Appeal No. 96-3203                                                                                   Page 3                            
                 Application No. 08/081,984                                                                                                             


                               The following reference is relied upon by the                                                                            
                 examiner as evidence of anticipation in support of his                                                                                 
                 rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b):                                                                                                    
                 German Patent (Heinke)                  3             3,203,410                           Nov. 25,                                     
                 1982                                                                                                                                   


                               Claims 21 through 31, 33 and 34 stand rejected under                                                                     
                 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Heinke.                                                                                     


                               The Heinke reference discloses a helically coiled                                                                        
                 wire that is adopted to be placed in a blood vessel for                                                                                
                 sealing the blood vessel. According to Heinke’s                                                                                        
                 specification, the coiled wire may have a “cylindrical,                                                                                
                 conical or barrel-shaped form” (translation, pages 3-4). The                                                                           
                 conical embodiments are shown in Figures 5 and 6 of the                                                                                
                 Heinke reference. From the examiner’s response to                                                                                      
                 appellants’ arguments on page 6 of the answer, we understand                                                                           
                 that he relies on the conical embodiment shown in Figure 6                                                                             
                 of the Heinke reference.                                                                                                               

                          3A translation of this reference is attached to the                                                                           
                 examiner’s answer.                                                                                                                     







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007