Ex Parte Ferry et al - Page 8

                Appeal 2007-2812                                                                             
                Application 10/337,236                                                                       
                20.  A stainless steel cap 33 is attached to the end of the catheter 21 (FF 16;              
                Kuntz, col. 5, ll. 15-19).  This element is the same structure as the “hollow                
                cylinder” structure of claim 1. (See Final Office Action 5-6.)                               
                21.  Kuntz’s catheter 21 has a magnet 27 at its end which is secured inside a                
                dome-shaped cap 33 (FF 15-17; Kuntz, col. 4, ll. 11-15, col. 5, ll. 15-19, and               
                Fig. 5), satisfying the limitation of claim 1 of a “magnetically responsive                  
                element inside said hollow cylinder” and of “dome-shaped cap securing the                    
                magnetically responsive element inside the hollow cylinder.” (See Final                      
                Office Action 5-6.)                                                                          
                22.  Kuntz describes all the elements of claim 1 (FF 19-21; Final Office                     
                Action 5-6).                                                                                 
                23.  “In regards to claim 23, Kuntz discloses a guidewire [catheter] 21                      
                wherein the magnetically responsive element 27 comprises a permanent                         
                magnetic element that is capable of aligning the distal end of the guidewire                 
                21 with the direction of a magnetic field that is applied from an external                   
                source magnet (see column 5/lines 15-22)” (Final Office Action 6).                           

                                               DISCUSSION                                                    
                Anderson                                                                                     
                      Claims 1-3, 6-12, 15, 16, 18, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §                  
                102(b) as anticipated by Anderson (Answer 2).                                                
                      Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that “each and every                       
                element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently                   
                described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil              
                Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).  In this                       
                case, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that Anderson anticipates claim                  

                                                     8                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013