Appeal No. 95-2111
Application 07/771,173
ordinary skill to, when treating lesions in
a fully occluded artery, to insert the
device the full length of the channel,
thereby allowing treatment of the largest
portion of the occlusion possible and
subsequent treatment of the full occlusion
with a larger diameter catheter, thus
producing a method such as claimed.
[Examiner’s Answer at pages 8-9].
The appellants argue in the Reply that there is nothing to
suggest the step of “withdrawing the optical fiber from the
channel while the laser is energized.” We agree with the
appellants and thus we will not sustain this rejection.
In summary,
(1) The examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-12 is not sustained.
(2) The examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, rejection of claim 10 is sustained.
(3) The examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
rejection of claims 1-12 is not sustained.
(4) The examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
claims 1 and 11 as anticipated by Sinofsky is sustained.
-15-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007