Appeal No. 97-1313
Application 07/931,695
the copending applications over which they are provisionally rejected in that they do not include the
"means for preventing" recited in claim 1, the parent of all the rejected claims.
However, the examiner takes essentially the same position that he did with regard to rejection (3), i.e.,
that (answer, page 5):
the use of a locking seal to seal the proximal end of a guide catheter to prevent blood
loss is old and well known (noting seal 34 of Frisbie et al. for example). Such a seal is
also inherently capable of preventing the distal end of the trapping member from
extending beyond the distal end of the guide catheter when inserted therein since the
catheter which carries the trapping member would be frictionally locked to the guiding
catheter when the seal is compressed by its associated cap (such as cap 37 of Frisbie
et al.) while the trapping member is within the guide catheter.
We note that since Frisbie was not included in the statement of these rejections, it should not be
considered. Ex parte Raske, 28 USPQ2d 1304, 1305 (BPAI 1993). However, even if it were
considered, it does not disclose structure which is the same as or equivalent to appellants' disclosed
"means for preventing," as discussed above in connection with rejection (3), and therefore would not
provide a basis for concluding that the rejected claims would have been obvious.
Rejections (1) and (2) therefore will not be sustained.
Rejection (5)
This rejection will not be sustained because the additional reference, Saab, applied therein,
does not supply the deficiency noted with regard to rejection (3), supra.
Rejections (6) and (7)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007