Appeal No. 1998-1789
Application No. 08/473,129
the claim. The claim language thus cannot be read on the
Johnson catheters and the claim is not anticipated thereby.
The rejection of independent claim 22 and dependent claims 23-
25 and 27-29 is not sustained.
With regard to these dependent claims, we further note
that Johnson fails to teach the sheath removal means recited
in claim 25 or the spring structure of claims 27-29.
The method recited in claim 32 requires the insertion in a
vessel of a catheter having tip retainer assembly at its distal
end and a control assembly at its proximal end outside of the
vessel, and manipulating the control assembly to deploy tip
retainer assembly into abutting contact with the vessel wall
with sufficient force to maintain the tip anchored at a
preselected location and spaced from the vessel wall to prevent
the catheter tip from repeatedly contacting the wall. The
latter feature is not taught by Johnson, as we have explained
above. The former one also is not taught by Johnson, in that
the radially extending elements of Johnson are for the purpose
of facilitating movement of the catheter through the vessel,
rather than anchoring it at a selected position. The rejection
of this claim is not sustained.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007