Appeal No. 97-1313
Application 07/931,695
indicated as allowable if rewritten in independent form. Claims 26 to 29, the other claims in the
application, were finally rejected, but in the answer the examiner states that the rejection(s) of those
claims has been withdrawn.
The claims on appeal are drawn to an intravascular trapping device and guide catheter
combination, and are reproduced in Appendix A of appellants' brief.
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Pollack 4,285,341 Aug. 25, 1981
Frisbie et al. (Frisbie) 4,730,616 Mar. 15, 1988
Saab 4,820,349 Apr. 11, 1989
The appealed claims stand finally rejected as follows:
(1) Claims 1 to 3, 16, 17 and 21 to 29, provisionally rejected on the ground of obviousness-type
double patenting over claims 1, 20 to 29 and 31 of copending application 07/830,479; 2
(2) Claims 1 to 3, 16, 17 and 21 to 29, provisionally rejected on the ground of obviousness-type
double patenting over claims 30 to 55 of copending application 07/789,183;
(3) Claims 1, 6, 21, 24 and 25, unpatentable over Frisbie under either 35 U.S.C.§ 102(b) or
§ 103;3
2Since claims 1, 20 to 24 and 31 of application 07/830,479 were canceled by an amendment
filed on September 27, 1993, the basis of this rejection is now limited to claims 25 to 29 of the '479
application.
3Since claim 6 depends from claim 1 through claims 2, 3 and 4, it is not apparent why claims
2, 3 and 4 were not included in this rejection.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007