Appeal No. 2001-1196
Application No. 09/139,155
Appellants continue (Brief, page 7) that there is no
teaching or suggestion to combine the devices of Stutz and Fain.
Yet, Fain teaches (column 1, lines 5-11) that the purpose of the
disclosed adapter is "to provide a different lead connector port
configuration than is provided by the header of the implantable
cardiac stimulation device." The different configurations
include both different size leads and also different numbers of
leads. Accordingly, Fain clearly provides motivation to combine
the adapter of Fain with the lead of Stutz. In addition,
notwithstanding appellants' argument to the contrary (Brief, page
9) the accommodation of a different number of leads and ports is
the same purpose and function disclosed by appellants.
Appellants further contend (Brief, page 7) that the
combination does not result in the claimed invention. More
specifically, appellants assert that "[a] lead adapter integrated
into a lead body was neither suggested or taught by Stutz or
Fain." Appellants continue (Brief, page 8) that it would not
have been obvious to combine Fain's adapter and Stutz's lead
"into a unitary lead and adapter." Likewise, appellants state
(Brief, page 8) that neither reference teaches forming the
adapting member "as part of the lead." However, claim 1 merely
requires that the adapting member "extend from" the lead, not be
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007