Appeal 2007-0850
Application 10/733,292
The Examiner relies on the same inherency theory to establish
obviousness (Answer 5-6). This rejection fails for the same reason as the
anticipation rejection. Because the Examiner has not established that Cragg
discloses or suggests a prosthesis having an apical wire structure capable of
extending across the lumen of an intersecting vessel, we also reverse the
obviousness rejection based on Cragg.
4. APPEALED REJECTIONS OVER PIPLANI
Claims 12-16, 19, 20, and 25-36 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, Piplani (Answer 3-4).
The Examiner cites Figure 4 of Piplani as disclosing a prosthesis
having a plurality of wire apices at the ends (id. at 3). The Examiner reasons
that “[t]he apices are inherently capable of being located across a lumen of a
second vessel” (id.): “if the prosthesis 20 is inserted into a patient who has
arteries . . . which are closer to the aortic bifurcation 221 than the example
shown in figure 19, then the apices 132 on wire structure 126 would be
located across the lumen of each of the laterally extending arteries” (id. at
3-4).
The Examiner also points out that the claims “are drawn to a
prosthesis for placement in a vessel in a certain location[,] . . . not . . . to a
method of placing the prosthesis in a vessel in a certain location” (Answer
6). The Examiner urges that Piplani’s wire structure is “constructed in a
manner similar to that . . . described in U.S. Patent 5,275,622” (Answer 7),
which in turn discloses that the wire structure “extends beyond the end of the
graft by a relative[ly] large distance of 1 cm” (id. at 8). Based on this, the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013