Appeal No. 1998-2637 Page 7
Application No. 08/470,142
end portion of the sheath,” “initiating formation of an opening in the surface area of the side
wall of the vessel by pressing the leading end portion of at least the one wire and the
leading end portion of the sheath against the surface area on the side wall of the vessel,”
and thereafter moving the leading end portions of the wire and the sheath through the
opening.
Melker discloses a “wire introducer” comprising a sheath 11 and a piercing wire 16
that has an end which extends beyond the end of the sheath, and therefore Melker fails to
disclose the structure required by the first step of claim 57, that is, wires having a leading
end portion at the leading end portion of the sheath. In addition, it is quite clear from the
drawings and the explanation of the operation of the device that initiation of the opening in
the skin is accomplished solely by means of the end of the wire and not by the wire and the
sheath, and Melker thus also fails to disclose or teach the second and third steps of claim
57. Merely adding reinforcing wires to the Melker sheath, as proposed by the examiner
based upon Lee, would not overcome these shortcomings in the basic structure and
operation of Melker.
The combined teachings of Melker and Lee fail to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the method recited in claim 57, and we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 57 or, it follows, of claims 58-60 and 67, which depend therefrom.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007