Appeal No. 1998-1789
Application No. 08/473,129
Claim 26, which is dependent from independent claim 22 by
way of claims 23-25, stands rejected as being unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Johnson and Corrigan, which was cited
for its teaching of forming a catheter introducing sheath of a
tearable membrane. Be that as it may, even considering Johnson
in the light of 35 U.S.C. § 103, the teachings of Corrigan fail3
to alleviate the shortcomings regarding maintaining the catheter
spaced from the walls of the vessel, which have been explained
above with regard to the subject matter recited in claim 22.
This rejection is not sustained.
3The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007