Appeal No. 2000-0447
Application No. 08/838,685
Appellants have also filed a declaration executed1 by Henry
Nita which states:
It is well known in the practice of medicine that flow-
directed catheters are a class of catheters considered
separate from guidewire-directed catheters. Flow-
directed catheters are comparatively more flexible and
are positioned at a target site by the flow of blood. In
contrast, typically stiffer guidewire-directed catheters
are pushed over a guidewire to a target site. [Nita
declaration at page 2].
The appellants have filed a copy of Juan M. Taveras, MD,
Neuroradiology, (Waverly Company), Chapter 18.2, page 1050,
which states:
Flow-directed microcatheters have a very soft, floppy,
distal segment that is carried by the blood flow (16).
The stiff proximal portion allows the distal segment to
be advanced through the catheter. ... With these
catheters it is usually possible to reach almost any
vessel, even those with very small flows, by using the
appropriate curve and manipulation.
In view of the foregoing, it is our view that the term “flow
directed catheter” is a catheter with a distal end which is so soft
that it can be carried to the target site by blood. As such, the
term “flow directed catheter” is not ambiguous.
1 The appellants filed this declaration with the reply brief
in response to the arguments made by the examiner for the first
time in the answer. As the reply brief, Nita declaration and
Taveras article were all filed and entered as a single paper
(Paper No. 17), we interpret the examiner’s statement in Paper
No. 18 as an approval of the entry of the reply brief and
attached declaration and article.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007