Ex parte MICHAEL D. BARBERE - Page 8

          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                
               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                   


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007