Appeal No. 1999-2029 Page 2
Application No. 08/431,360
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to an occlusive device,
and typically includes a substrate, often a helical metal
coil, and a multiplicity of fibers incorporated therewith for
enhancing a tissue-ingrowth response for occlusion
(specification, p. 1, lines 17-20). An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 1
and 7, which appear in the appendix to the appellants' brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Phelps et al. 5,382,259 Jan. 17,
1995
(Phelps)
Dormandy, Jr. et al. 5,382,260 Jan. 17,
1995
(Dormandy)
Claims 1 through 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Phelps.
Claims 12 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Dormandy in view of Phelps.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007