Appeal 2006-3319
Application 10/366,585
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Machek US 5,954,761 Sep. 21, 1999
Langberg US 2002/0016628 A1 Feb. 07, 2002
Bardy US 2002/0143262 A1 Oct. 03, 2002
Cohn US 2002/0183841 A1 Dec. 05, 2002
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1-3, 11, 12, 14, and 33-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) and (e) as being anticipated by Cohn.
Claims 1-11 and 13-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Langberg.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cohn in view of Machek.
Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cohn in view of Bardy.
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejections in the
Answer (mailed April 5, 2006). Appellants present opposing arguments in
the Appeal Brief (filed January 27, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed June 5,
2006).
OPINION
The anticipation rejection based on Cohn
Cohn discloses a method of implanting a mitral valve (cinching device
106) in a patient's coronary sinus adjacent the patient's mitral valve annulus
to reduce mitral regurgitation, the method including the steps of positioning
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013