Appeal No. 95-4847
Application No. 08/079,222
neutralized.” In our view this also is a limitation that goes
to the process of manufacture of the fibrin. Therefore, for
the same reasons as were set forth above with regard to the
term “fibrin” as it is utilized in claim 1, we find claim 2
not to define over the combined teachings of the two
references, and we will sustain the rejection of claim 2.
Dependent claim 6 further limits claim 1 by adding the
limitation that “the fibrin is intermixed with a polymeric
material.” While polymeric material was disclosed in both of
the applied references, their collective teachings did not
include intermixing it with fibrin. We therefore will not
sustain the rejection of this claim.
We have carefully considered all of the appellant’s
arguments. However, as to those rejections which we have
sustained, the arguments have not persuaded us that the
positions taken by the examiner were in error. We observe
that there is a broad commonality of purpose in the
appellant’s invention and in those of the two references. The
object of the appellant’s invention is to repair vascular
injury by coating a stent with fibrin to place the fibrin at
the site to interact with the body (specification, page 3),
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007