Appeal 2007-2018
Application 09/810,377
particles.” (Br. 10.) We are not persuaded by these arguments for the
reasons discussed above.
Appellants also argue that “Hopkins neither teaches nor suggests the
use of an FEP sheath having the features claimed herein” (id.). However,
the Examiner is only relying on Hopkins for its teaching of radiopaque
particle sizes. Therefore, we are not persuaded by this argument.
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
claim 14 would have been obvious over Parker in view of Coneys and
Hopkins, which Appellants have not rebutted. We therefore affirm the
rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Parker in view of Coneys and Hopkins. The Examiner relies on Parker and
Coneys for teaching the features of claims 1, 2, and 4, on which claim 5
depends (Answer 4). The Examiner relies on Hopkins for disclosing the
“use of radiopaque materials such as tungsten in a catheter, where it is
known that the particles can be as small as 0.9 microns” (id. at 4-5). As
discussed above, we agree that it would have been obvious to include
tungsten particles in the distal tip that range in size from 0.9 to 2.0 microns,
which is within the broader range recited in claim 5. Overlapping ranges
support a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1468, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellants argue that these claims are allowable for the same reasons
that claim 14 is allowable (Br. 11). We are not persuaded by these
arguments for the reasons discussed above with regard to claim 14.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013