Appeal No. 97-0684 Application 08/171,343 balloon as an integral part of the outer tube so that balloon portions can be readily and reliably formed (column 2, lines 12-20). Of course, if Simpson and Sugiyama were combined in the manner proposed by the examiner, the resulting catheter may very well function to resist bunching up of the balloon as it is forced through stenosis, as taught by appellant. This fact, however, does not provide the proper motivation for combining the teachings of these references. It is the teachings of the prior art taken as a whole which must provide the motivation or suggestion to combine the references. See Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied 488 U.S. 825 (1988); Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1143, 227 USPQ 543, 551 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442-43, 230 USPQ 313, 315-16 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, only appellant has suggested a two tube, two lumen balloon catheter having the outer tube terminating proximally of the distal end of the catheter and being attached to the inner tube to resist axial telescoping of the tubes with respect to each other when the catheter is advanced against a resistance at the distal region of the -8-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007