Appeal 2007-1998
Application 09/997,829
therapeutic agent and a polymer onto the stent and then add an additional
layer, e.g., a tubular outer layer comprising expanded, sintered PTFE tape,
on top of the therapeutic coating. Prima facie obviousness requires a
teaching that all elements of the claimed invention are found in the prior art
and a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the
relevant field to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. See
KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Accordingly, Becker fails to
make up for the deficiency in the combination of Myers and Choi.
On reflection, we find that the evidence of record is insufficient to
support a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we reverse the
rejection of claim 108-110 and 112 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Myers, Choi, and Becker.
5. Claims 118 and 119 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Myer, Choi, and Banas. Claims 118
and 119 depend ultimately from claim 103.
The Examiner relies on the combination of Myers and Choi as set
forth above (Answer 6). The Examiner finds that the combination of Myers
and Choi fail to teach PTFE particles used to bond the tubular inner and
outer layers (Answer 7). The Examiner relies on Banas to teach “an aqueous
polymer solution of PTFE between the inner graft and outer graft layer to
bond the layers (id.). In addition, the Examiner relies on Banas to teach an
outer tubular layer that is heated to bond to the base (id.). Based on this
evidence the Examiner concludes that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to substitute the adhesive material and use PTFE particles (in
solution) as taught by Banas in the stent of Myers et al. as
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013