Appeal No. 98-1936
Application 08/316,933
expanded configuration. Likewise, in the language of claim 24
on appeal, we note that Andersen discloses a medical device
comprising a structure/stent of a first material preconfigured
into a first conformation and a hydrophilic polymer material
(col. 5, lines 3-5) preconfigured into a second conformation,
the respective mechanical strengths of the first material and
the hydrophilic polymer material being such that the
mechanical strength of the hydrophilic polymer material (when
cured) exceeds that of the first material sufficiently so that
the structure/stent “is in the second conformation” (i.e., in
a compact form), wherein the hydrophilic polymer material is
adapted to lose its mechanical strength upon the occurrence of
a “triggering event” and upon loss of said mechanical
strength, the medical device assumes the first conformation or
expanded form. Regarding claims 22, 23 and 25 through 28, we
note that Andersen (col. 5, lines 3-5) refers to hydrophilic
polymers such as polyvinyl alcohol based materials and
gelatins which would inherently, upon hydration, soften and
expand by from about 5% to 300%.
The decision of the examiner is reversed. A new ground
of rejection has been entered pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007