Appeal No. 2006-0817
Application 10/325,443
providing and polymerizing a polymer on the surface of the medical device, the polymer
reacting with the multi-functional monomer imbibed into the surface of the device to form a
lubricious coating.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Michal et al. (Michal ‘285) 6,287,285 Sep. 11, 2001
Michal et al. (Michal ‘517) 6,656,517 Dec. 2, 2003
(filed Jul. 25, 2001)
The examiner has provisionally rejected appealed claims 1 through 4 and 6 through 35
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1 through
50 of copending United States Patent Application 10/705,751, filed November 10, 2003 (answer,
pages 3-4 and 8), and has rejected appealed claims 1 through 4 and 6 through 35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Michal ‘285 or ‘517 (answer, pages 4-7).
Appellants argue claims 1 through 4, 6 through 17 and 27 through 35 as a group and
claims 18 through 26 as a group (brief, pages 5-7). We decide this appeal based on appealed
claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 18 and 27 as representative of the grounds of rejection and appellants’
groupings of claims. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (September 2004).
We affirm the provisional ground of rejection under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting and the rejection of claim 1 under § 103(a), and reverse the
ground of rejection of claims 2 through 4 and 6 through 35 under § 103(a).
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellants,
we refer to the answer and to the brief and reply brief for a complete exposition thereof.
Opinion
We summarily affirm the provisional ground of rejection under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting because appellants state the intention to file a
terminal disclaimer to obviate this ground, as acknowledged by the examiner (brief, pages
1-2 n.1; answer, page 8).
In order to consider the ground of rejection of representative claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 18 and
27 under § 103(a), we first interpret the language of the claims by giving the terms thereof the
broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the written description in the specification unless
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007