Appeal No. 2003-1337
Serial No. 08/480,411
The examiner argues that “at col. 3, lines 22-26, Pray et al
teaches that [the] inner tube has a greater diameter at the
proximate end than at the distal end” (answer, pages 8-9).
Pray’s inner tube (24A, 24B) referred to by the examiner is not
part of the outer wall but, rather, is inside the outer tube
(figure 1). The examiner has not pointed out where Pray
discloses or would have suggested an outer tube having an inner
lumen whose diameter is greater at the proximate end than at the
distal end. Also, the examiner has not pointed out where Pray
discloses or would have suggested an outer tube wall thickness
which is greater at the proximate end than at the distal end.
Moreover, the examiner has not explained how Pray would have
fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, including
in Waddell’s tube wall at least one cured resin layer.
For the above reasons we reverse the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 10 and claims 11 and 13 which depend
therefrom.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
over Waddell and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Waddell in view of
Pray, and claim 33 provisionally under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over the claims of
copending application no. 08/331,280, are affirmed. The
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007