Appeal 2007-0850
Application 10/733,292
claim scope.”). Here, Appellants have clearly stated that the claims require
only that the apices do not totally occlude the lumen of the second vessel.
Thus, overall, we interpret claims 12 and 20 as encompassing an
intraluminal graft device having the claimed apical wire structure, in which
the wire apices are capable of extending across the lumen of a connecting
vessel without completely shutting or closing the connecting vessel.
2. REJECTIONS OVER CRAGG
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Kornberg US 4,617,932 Oct. 21, 1986
Lazarus US 5,275,622 Jan. 4, 1994
Piplani US 5,489,295 Feb. 6, 1996
Cragg US 5,665,115 Sep. 9, 1997
3. REJECTIONS OVER CRAGG
Claims 21-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by, or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over, Cragg (Answer 5-6).1
Claims 21-36 all ultimately depend from either claim 12 or claim 20.
Claims 21-36 therefore all require the device’s wire structure to have apices
capable of extending across the lumen of a second vessel without occluding
it.
The Examiner contends that Cragg meets that limitation because
Cragg discloses a prosthesis “provided with a wire structure 11 which has a
plurality of apices extending beyond at least a portion of the corresponding
1 Examiner’s Answer mailed September 21, 2006.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013