Appeal No. 97-0684
Application 08/171,343
The references of record relied upon by the examiner as
evidence of obviousness are:
Simpson et al. (Simpson) 4,323,071 Apr. 6, 1982
Sugiyama et al. (Sugiyama) 88/04560 Jun. 30, 19882
(Japanese Patent)
Claims 1, 4-7, 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson in view of Sugiyama,
“each in view of the other.” The examiner’s rationale in support
of this rejection is as follows:
Attaching the Simpson et al. inner and outer tubes
together in order to provide a more sturdy connection
between the tubes would have been obvious in view of
the Sugiyama et al. teaching of securing the tubes
together (with the spacer and opening 11 as shown by
Sugiyama et al. fig. 6 for example) apparently in order
to provide such a sturdy connection.
Alternatively, using only two coaxial tubes in the
Sugiyama et al. catheter in order to simplify it and
reduce its cost would have been obvious in view of the
Simpson et al. teaching of using only two tubes. In
other words, replacing the vent path B of Sugiyama et
al. with a removable vent tube as shown by Simpson et
al. at 156 in order to reduce the profile of the
catheter would have been obvious. [answer, page 3].
Simpson pertains to a two tube, two lumen coaxial balloon
dilation catheter comprising an inner tube 37 defining a
guidewire lumen therethrough, and a surrounding outer tube 38
2Translation attached.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007