Appeal No. 2000-2047 Page 7
Application No. 09/014,759
also begs the question of why the cutting action of Makower’s Figure 17 nonrotating
cutting blade would be improved by causing it to rotate. The examiner also fails to confront
the problem of how the blade would be caused to rotate, inasmuch as structure capable of
doing so appears not to be disclosed by Makower with regard to either of the
embodiments.
It is our conclusion that the teachings of Makower fail to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in claim 1. We therefore will
not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or of claims 2-12, which depend therefrom.
Independent method claims 23 and 25 also contain the requirement that the
advancing cutting catheter rotate to produce an annular cut through the tubular body organ
structure. On the basis of the same reasoning applied to claim 1, the rejection of these two
claims is not sustained.
Independent claim 13 stands rejected as being unpatentable over Makower in view
of Kim or, in the alternative, Kim in view of Makower. This claim contains essentially the
same elements as claim 1, except that it lacks the feature of rotating the cutting catheter.
However, in addition to the guide wire being adapted to pierce through the patient’s
existing tubular body organ structure, this claim requires that the cutting catheter include on
its distal end a plurality of distally directed cutting edges that extend radially out from the
centering wire spaced from one another, each having a cutting edge inclined distally back
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007