Appeal 2007-2812
Application 10/337,236
Kuntz
Claims 1 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Kuntz (Answer 3).
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 (FF 19-21) that Kuntz
anticipates claim 1 and 23 because it describes every element of the claims.
With respect to claim 1, Appellants contend that “[t]he whole intent of
Kuntz is to provide a magnet tip that is attracted by a magnet. . . . which
precludes aligning the tip in directions other than towards the magnet” (Br.
11-12).
The problem with this argument is that Appellants do not identify any
element of the guidewire recited in claim 1 which distinguishes it from the
structure of the device described by Kuntz. We agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Kuntz’s magnet meets the limitation of claim 1 of a
“magnetically responsive element” (FF 21). We do not understand how a
magnetic element having the same structure as claimed would perform any
differently from it as urged by Appellants. In fact, we note that the magnetic
material described as suitable in the claimed medical guidewire (Spec. 5:
[0022]) is the same material (neodymium-iron-boron) described by Kuntz as
preferred (Kuntz, col. 5, ll. 15-17; FF 18). It appears to us that Appellants’
argument is really that the claimed device is used differently that the device
described in Kuntz. Thus, we affirm the rejection of claim 1.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013