Appeal No. 1998-1789
Application No. 08/473,129
Figures 8-11 need be capable only of its stated function of
obstructing blood flow, and not of keeping the tip of the
catheter from contacting the wall of the vessel.
The second shortcoming of Johnson is with regard to the
claim requirement that the tip immobilizing means is of such
structure as to function “without substantially obstructing
fluid flow of blood through the blood vessel, such that
catheter failure due to stenosis or thrombosis at the catheter
distal end is reduced.” The function of the radially
outwardly extending elements in the Johnson device is exactly
the opposite for, as clearly is stated in the patent, they
obstruct blood flow so as to “flow direct” the catheter
through the vessel.
For the reasons set forth above, it is our opinion that
Johnson does not anticipate the subject matter recited in
claim 1, and the rejection is not sustained.
Claim 9 also requires that the tip immobilizing means
maintain the catheter tip a spaced distance from the blood
vessel wall and prevent it from contacting the wall. As the
appellant has argued, this is not taught by Johnson nor is
there reason to assume that this would be inherent in the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007