Appeal No. 1998-2637 Page 10
Application No. 08/470,142
and the wires through the opening formed in the side wall of the vessel, which are the
second and third steps of the claimed method. Lee discloses reinforcing wires enclosed
in the walls of a cannula, but does not teach using such wires in the needle, which in the
reference is the element that accomplishes the piercing of the wall of the vessel.
Therefore, Lee also fails to disclose or teach moving the sheath and the wires through an
opening in the side wall of the vessel during the piercing step. The mere fact that the prior
art structure could be modified does not make such a modification obvious unless the prior
art suggests the desirability of doing so. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ
1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Clearly, neither of these references suggests the desirability
of adding reinforcing wires to that portion of the catheter or sheath which pierces the side
wall of the blood vessel, and that is what is necessary in order to perform the subsequent
step of moving the wires and the sheath through the opening during the piercing step.
For the reasons expressed above, it is our conclusion that the combined teachings
of Grayzel and Lee fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the
subject matter recited in claim 70, and we will not sustain this rejection of the claim. It
follows that we also will not sustain the like rejection of claims 71, 72, 76-78 and 80, which
depend from claim 70.
(5)
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007