Appeal No. 98-2385
Application 08/403,995
parallel individual filaments in each reinforcing group.” Thus, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 or 17, or of any of the claims which depend
therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Truckai.
We reach a contrary conclusion with regard to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 3, 6 through 9, 13 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Brown.
As the examiner has correctly noted, when we look to the showing in Figure 6 of the Brown
patent, we perceive a method of making a catheter and a product (i.e., Fig. 6f) that is
identical to that set forth in the claims on appeal. More specifically, with respect to
representative claim 1 on appeal, we note that Brown teaches a catheter comprising a
main catheter body (21 in Fig. 6f), a first set of reinforcing filaments (applied at 28)
extending in a clockwise manner, and a second set of reinforcing filaments (applied at 22)
extending in a counterclockwise manner. As can be readily seen in Figure 6 of Brown,
each of the first and second sets of reinforcing filaments is comprised of equal and parallel
spaced filament groups, one dispensed from the upper end of each of the wrappers (22,
28) and one dispensed from the lower end of each of the wrappers, and wherein each of
said filament groups includes two or more (three as seen in Fig. 6) parallel individual
filaments. Thus, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Brown, and note that (as per appellants’ grouping of the claims)
claims 2, 3, 6 through 9, 13 and 17 fall with claim 1.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007