Appeal No. 1999-2029 Page 10
Application No. 08/431,360
Phelps' strands are fused to the coil cannot take the place of
the necessary evidence. Accordingly, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 1, and claims 2 through 6 dependent
thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Claim 7
We sustain the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
Claim 7 is drawn to an occlusive device for occluding a
lumen or cavity in a mammal, comprising, inter alia, a
substrate and a plurality of fibers secured to the substrate
and extending from the substrate at an interface therebetween.
This claim also states that the fibers are secured to the
substrate by causing the substrate to emit heat.
The examiner's position (answer, p. 3) with respect to
claim 7 is that
the patentability of the product does not depend on its
method of production. The claimed product appears to be
the same or very similar to the Phelps et al. product
since the end product, in each case, is a substrate coil
with fibers melted and fused onto the coil.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007