Appeal No. 95-4847
Application No. 08/079,222
OPINION
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness (see In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) which is established when the
teachings of the prior art itself would appear to have
suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill
in the art (see In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529,
1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). This is not to say, however, that the
claimed invention must expressly be suggested in any one or
all of the references, rather, the test for obviousness is
what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art (see Cable
Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226
USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Schatz discloses a deformable metal stent which may, with
reference to Figures 5 and 6, have a “biological compatible
coating 90 upon wall surfaces 74" (page 7, column 2, lines 27-
29). Examples of the coatings are absorbable polymers which
could contain drugs whereby, as the coating dissolves, the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007