Appeal No. 97-2552 Page 12
Application No. 08/541,658
After the scope and content of the prior art are determined,
the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are
to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18,
148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Based on our analysis and review of Sinofsky '670 and
Sinofsky '677 and claims 3 and 4, it is our opinion that the only
difference is the limitation that a fluid light guide means is
positioned within the catheter relative to the optical fiber so
as to direct the radiation emitted by the fiber toward the target
site. In this regard, it is our opinion that the claimed supply
of photocurable fluid soft tissue repair material reads on the
crosslinking agents disclosed by both Sinofsky '670 and Sinofsky
'677. In addition, it is our view that the apparatus 81 of
Sinofsky '670 and the apparatus 81 of Sinofsky '677 are
inherently constructed and arranged for insertion into vessels,
ducts, veins, arteries, or blood vessels of a living body.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007