Appeal No. 1997-0926
Application No. 08/552,045
1991
(Valentine)
Scarpelli et al. 5,043,161 Aug. 27,
1991
(Scarpelli)
Soper 5,071,706 Dec. 10,
1991
The following rejections are before us for review:
(1) claims 1 through 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Valentine;
(2) claims 4 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Valentine,
as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hyans;2
(3) claims 1 through 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Soper and
Scarpelli; and
(4) claims 4 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Soper and
Scarpelli, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of
Hyans.
In that claim 7 is directed to a lubricant per se and is broader than2
claim 1, which is directed to the combination of a medical device coated with
the lubricant, it is not clear why it was not included in Rejection (1).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007