Appeal No. 98-2385
Application 08/403,995
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we have made the determinations which follow.
Like the examiner (answer, page 3), it is our understanding that claims 1 through 3
and 6 through 17 are to stand or fall together because appellants’ brief does not include a
statement that this grouping of claims does not stand or fall together. In fact, page 2 of the
brief clearly characterizes claims 1 through 3 and 6 through 17 as constituting a “first
group.” Thus, in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), we select claim 1 as being
representative of the “first group.”
Looking to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3, 6, 7 and 10 through 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Truckai, we have carefully reviewed the
patent to Truckai, but must agree with appellants’ arguments on page 3 of the brief that
there is no teaching in this reference of first and second sets of reinforcing filaments,
wherein each of the sets is comprised of “equal and parallel spaced filament groups” and
“each of said filament groups includes two or more parallel individual filaments,” as set
forth in independent claim 1 on appeal. Likewise, we must agree, with regard to method
claim 17 on appeal, that Truckai does not disclose or teach providing “multiple reinforcing
filament groups” over the base coat of a catheter wherein there is provided “two or more
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007