Appeal 2007-0850
Application 10/733,292
Appellants argue that placing Piplani’s device in a vessel with the
apices across an intersecting vessel lumen would yield a non-functional
result because the lumen would not exert enough tension on the wire
structure to allow the hooks opposite the lumen to penetrate the vessel
wall (Br. 10). We do not find this argument persuasive.
Piplani discloses that the apices of the device extend “a substantial
distance” from the body of the graft, and therefore Piplani’s device
reasonably appears to comprise apices capable of extending across the
lumen of an intersecting vessel without completely occluding it. The device
disclosed by Piplani therefore meets the structural limitations of the instant
claims. It makes no difference, with respect to anticipation, whether the
hooks on Piplani’s device would function as intended if it were deployed as
proposed by Appellant.
Appellants further argue that Piplani does not describe the apices
being in a generally zig-zag or sinusoidal configuration (Br. 11-12; Reply
Br. 5-6). We do not agree. The claims require only a “generally” sinusoidal
or zig-zag structure. The term “generally” encompasses some variation,
including the structure of the expandable spring attachment depicted in
Figure 4.
Appellants further argue that Piplani does not disclose first and second
wires not at the end of the prosthesis (Br. 12). We do not agree. Piplani
states that “[r]adiopaque markers 121 are provided on the main body 112 . . .
and can be formed of a suitable material such as lengths of platinum wire
secured to the fabric of the graft by suitable means . . .” (Piplani, col. 5,
ll. 23-27, emphasis added).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013