Appeal No. 1998-2095
Application No. 08/460,311
positioning said circumferential support structure at the
bifurcation of the bifurcated vessel to be supported by the
bifurcation” (emphasis added) recited in claim 39. In
addition, in order to be “supported by the bifurcation,” the
circumferential support structure must be seated upon the
bifurcation of the vessel, again consistent with the
underlying specification. We find no corresponding teaching
or suggestion in Barone. In Figure 4, Barone does not show
the thin-walled member 166 (which corre-sponds to the claimed
circumferential support structure) seated upon or supported by
the crotch of the bifurcation.
Since all the limitations of claim 39 would not have been
taught or suggested by the combined disclosures of Lazarus and
Barone, it follows that the examiner has not established the
prima facie obviousness of the invention set forth in claim
39. See In re Royka, supra. Thus, the examiner's rejection
of claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will not be sustained.
Claims 40 and 41 are dependent on claim 39 and contain
all of the limitations of that claim. Therefore, we will also
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007