Appeal No. 1998-2095
Application No. 08/460,311
natural result flowing from following the teachings of Barone
would be an
inflammatory response between the intraluminal graft and the
inner wall of the diseased or damaged vessel sufficient to
result in the attachment of the graft to the inner wall of the
vessel as claimed by appellant. Accordingly, since all the
limitations of appellant’s claim 30 are not found in the
applied prior art or obvious therefrom, it follows that the
examiner's rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will
not be sustained.
Claims 31 and 33 through 38 are dependent on claim 30
and, therefore, contain all of the limitations of that claim.
Therefore, we will also not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejection of claims 31 and 33 through 38.
Turning next to independent claim 39, we note that claim
39 calls for a method of implanting an intraluminal vascular
graft within a diseased or damaged vessel which is bifurcated
along its length and does not call for the step of attaching
the intraluminal vascular graft to the inner wall of said
vessel by initiating a non-perforating, inflammatory response
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007