Appeal No. 97-1313
Application 07/931,695
presented no argument to that effect. Moreover, it appears to us that it would have this capability,
since appellants do not disclose that a captivation balloon must have any particular unique
characteristics not found in a conventional balloon such as disclosed by Pollack. See In re Schreiber,
128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432.
Finally, appellants argue that Pollack does not suggest the exchange of a first interventional
catheter for another while leaving the guide wire in position, as recited in claim 1. However, this is
again merely a recitation of an intended use of the apparatus and does not make a claim to the
apparatus patentable.
Accordingly, we conclude that claim 1 is anticipated by Pollack under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
On pages 54 to 57, appellants assert that various groups of the dependent claims are separately
patentable from independent claim 1. The following statement is typical of the reasons given (brief,
pages 54 to 55, footnote omitted):
Claims 2-3 are either directly or indirectly dependent from claim 1, and further are
limited to an elongated shaft having a flexible proximal portion. An advantage provided
by the flexible proximal portion is that the trapping member may be operated from a
location other than directly proximal of the proximal end of the guide catheter. In view
of thereof, claims 2-3 are deemed separately patentable from claim 1.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007