Appeal No. 98-1936
Application 08/316,933
For the above reasons the examiner’s rejection of claims
1 through 11 and 21 through 28 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as being anticipated by Wiesner will not be sustained.
Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b),
we enter the following new ground of rejection.
Claims 21 through 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as being anticipated by Andersen. More specifically, 2
we note that Andersen discloses (in the language of claim 21
on appeal) a medical device for internal use in a patient,
comprising a structure/stent that would ordinarily assume a
first conformation (expanded configuration) and a hydrophilic
polymer (col. 5, lines 3-5) coated upon at least a portion of
the structure, with the hydrophilic polymer being in a second
conformation and having
sufficient rigidity (when cured) such that the structure/stent
is held in the second conformation (compact form), wherein
upon increased temperature and hydration of the hydrophilic
polymer the structure/stent assumes the first conformation or
2Andersen was cited and briefly discussed on page 5 of
appellants’ specification.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007