Appeal No. 96-3203 Page 4
Application No. 08/081,984
Appellants do not appear to dispute the examiner’s
position that Heinke’s device “is capable of performing in
the same manner as Applicant’s [sic, applicants’] device” as
set forth on page 3 of the answer. In support of this
position, the examiner relies on Heinke’s disclosure that
the coiled wire will “inhibit the blood flow to a high
degree” thus inferring that some blood will flow past the
coiled wire to filter the blood. We nevertheless cannot
sustain the § 102(b) rejection of claim 21.
Contrary to the examiner’s position as set forth on
page 3 of the answer, Heinke does not disclose that the
“largest loop is cylindrical” in the embodiment shown in
Figure 6 or, for that matter, the other conical embodiment
shown in Figure 5. Instead, the coiled wires shown in both
of these embodiments are merely described as being
“conical,” thus inferring that the coiled wire has a spiral
form in which the diameter of the coiled wire continuously
and progressively decreases from the base end to the apex of
the coiled configuration. In contrast, a loop or segment
thereof would be required to have a constant diameter in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007