Appeal No. 1997-4292 Page 11
Application No. 08/515,344
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 1 to 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is
reversed.
Claim 5
We sustain the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e).
Claim 5 reads as follows:
A stent comprising a plurality of expandable cells,
and at least one of said cells having an expansion
limiting bridge contained therein, said bridge causing
said cell to have a finite expansion limit in one lateral
dimension.
The examiner's position with respect to claim 5 is that
Pinchasik discloses a stent with a plurality of expandable
1(...continued)
must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to
reasonably support the determination that the allegedly
inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings
of the applied prior art. See Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461,
1464 (Bd. Patent App. & Int. 1990).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007