Appeal No. 97-2551
Application 08/249,821
Rather than reiterate the examiner’s full statement
of the above-noted rejection and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and the appellants regarding the
rejection, we make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 22) for the examiner’s complete reasoning in support of
the rejection and the appellant’s brief (Paper No. 21) for the
appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed appellants’ invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art reference applied by the examiner, and the respective
positions advanced by the appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
that follow.
Garza discloses a device for releasing a self-
expanding endoprosthesis 25. The device includes an inner
catheter 18 and a first outer catheter 50, which is slidably
disposed about the inner catheter. (Figures 1 and 6; Column 3,
lines 51-53; Column 5, lines 37-38). Garza also discloses a
second outer catheter 78 slidably disposed about the first
outer catheter 50 (Figures 1 and 6; Column 4, lines 18-20;
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007