Appeal 2007-2018
Application 09/810,377
FEP layer embedded in virgin FEP) would provide a sheath
wherein the shaft is distinctly less radiopaque than the distal tip
section.
(Br. 8.)
We are not persuaded by these arguments. First, the Examiner
combines Parker with Coneys by replacing the polyether block amide in
both the tip and the outer layer of the wall of the main tubular portion with
FEP (Answer 8). This combination does not necessarily require that the FEP
loaded with radiopaque material be surrounded by pure FEP.
Second, even if the high loading of FEP with radiopaque material
would make it necessary to surround this highly loaded layer with pure FEP,
claim 1 does not exclude this arrangement. Instead, claim 1 recites a “distal
tip section containing between about 20% and 75% by weight of a
radiopaque material.” This recitation encompasses a distal tip section
containing highly loaded FEP surrounded by pure FEP, as long as the distal
tip section contains 20-75% by weight radiopaque material. In addition,
even if this arrangement would dilute the strength of the radiographic signal
as compared to a distal tip section containing the same amount of radiopaque
material, but distributed throughout the FEP in the distal tip, which
Appellants have not demonstrated to be the case, this argument would not be
persuasive because claim 1 does not recite the overall strength of the
radiographic signal.
Furthermore, the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that the
combination of Parker with Coneys would provide a shaft that is distinctly
less radiopaque than the distal tip. Parker discloses a catheter having a soft
tip including 35-65% by weight tungsten and a main tubular portion
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013