Appeal No. 97-2551
Application 08/249,821
endoprothesis within both the first outer catheter 50 and the
second outer catheter 78 and as such is “adapted to receive a
first end portion of a self-expanding endoprosthesis” as
recited in claim 11.
Appellants further argue that the device of Garza is
incapable of separately releasing respective ends of a
prosthesis or recapturing a device in mid-release by moving a
second outer catheter distally to its original position. We
do not find this argument persuasive because it is not
commensurate with the actual scope of claim 11 which does not
recite that the respective ends of the prosthesis are
separately released or that the device is recaptured in mid-
release by moving a second outer catheter distally to its
original position.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 11. We will also sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 12-22, as the appellants
indicate that these claims stand or fall together (Brief at
page 3).
We will not, however, sustain this rejection as it
relates to claim 23 because there is no disclosure in Garza of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007