Appeal No. 1998-2830
Application No. 08/558,006
Claims 11-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by EPO ‘366.
The rejection is explained in the Examiner's Answer, and
the opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in the
Brief.
We reverse the rejection and remand the application to
the examiner, as explained below.
OPINION
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles
of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention.
See, for example, In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31
USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Independent claim 11 requires, inter alia, that there be
an elongate catheter body to which is attached a tip “adapted
to removably lodge in the ostium of the right coronary
artery,” with the catheter body being bendably formed near the
distal end “to impinge against the opposite wall of the aorta
along a line . . . proximal of the ostium of the [right]
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007