Appeal No. 1999-0712 Page 9
Application No. 08/748,669
For the foregoing reasons, we shall sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 41, and
claims 51-53 and 58-61 which stand or fall therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Schatz in view of Wolff. As claim 54 also stands or falls with claim 41, we
shall also sustain the examiner's rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Schatz in view of Wolff and Samson.
With regard to the rejection of claim 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner's
determination (answer, pages 3 and 4) that it would have been obvious to shape each of the
connector members 100 of Schatz as a coil to increase its bending flexibility and to coat the
members with radiopaque material in order to determine the location and orientation of the stent
assembly within the blood vessel in view of the teaching to do so by Wolff is not contested by
the appellants, as discussed above. The appellants (brief, pages 10 and 11) do, however,
dispute the examiner's assertions (1) that the coil is an "eyelet" as claimed and (2) that the
radiopaque material taught by Wolff is positioned "in said eyelet" since it coats the radial inner
portion of the coil (see answer, page 4).
An "eyelet" is a small hole for receiving a shoestring, rope, cord, hook, etc. or a metal
ring or short tube for reinforcing such a hole. As a coil defines a small hole in the interior4
therein capable of receiving a rope or cord and forms a short tube capable of reinforcing a
small hole, we agree with the examiner's determination that the coil-shaped connector member
4 Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition (Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1988).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007