Appeal No. 2000-0323 Page 17
Application No. 08/608,920
wire lumen and a contrast media injection lumen terminating in
an injection port in the distal end of the dilator.
It is the position of the examiner (final rejection, pp.
4-5; answer, pp. 4-6) that the claimed "dilator" is readable
on Ruggio's catheter (22, 236). It is the position of the
appellant (brief, pp. 4-6) that the claimed "dilator" is not
readable on Ruggio's catheter (22, 236). We agree with the
appellant. In our view one of ordinary skill in the art would
not regard Ruggio's catheter (22, 236) as being "a dilator."
We reach this conclusion based on (1) Ruggio's own teaching
(column 7, lines 29-40) that a conventional dilator and a
sheath are advanced over a J-tipped guidewire inserted into a
vein, thereafter the dilator is removed, and then an
appropriate catheter is advanced through the sheath to the
intravascular site or heart chamber under examination; and (2)
the appellant's argument that "a dilator is not a catheter"
since a dilator is rigid while a catheter is flexible. Thus,
it is our determination that the claimed "dilator" is not
readable on Ruggio's catheter (22, 236) since Ruggio's
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007