Appeal 2007-2563
Application 10/058,640
8. The stent of claim 1 wherein each serpentine band comprises
alternating peaks and troughs, the number of peaks in the stent being twice
the number of wishbone connectors.
10. A stent having a first proximal end and a distal end, the stent
comprising:
a plurality of axially spaced serpentine bands, each serpentine band
having a proximal end and a distal end, each serpentine band having a
plurality of peaks and troughs, all of the peaks longitudinally aligned with
one another, all of the troughs longitudinally aligned with one another,
serpentine bands which are adjacent one another connected one to the other;
and
a plurality of wishbone connectors, each wishbone connector
connecting two serpentine bands which are adjacent one another and having
an elongate portion which is disposed between the two serpentine bands and
does not overlap longitudinally with either of the two serpentine bands, the
elongate portion having a proximal end and a distal end, the proximal end
having two legs extending therefrom to one of the two serpentine bands and
the distal end having two legs extending therefrom to the other of the two
serpentine bands, the two legs extending from the proximal end of the
elongate portion of each wishbone connector being circumferentially and
longitudinally displaced from the two legs extending from the distal end of
the elongate portion of the wishbone connector,
at least one wishbone connector connecting serpentine
bands which are adjacent one another.
ISSUES ON APPEAL
There are two issues in dispute between the Examiner and Appellants.
First, Appellants contend that Dang’s stent does not anticipate claims
1 and 10 because it “fails to include wishbone connectors that have elongate
portions, which do not overlap longitudinally with either of the two
serpentine bands” as recited in claims 1 and 10 (Br. 8; see also Br. 12). The
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013