Appeal No. 1998-1045
Application 08/482,674
distal end 28 being in a straight configuration. However,
when it is necessary for further advancement, wire member 16
is pulled relative to the rest of the catheter, to impose a
curved configuration upon distal end 28, as shown in phantom
lines in Fig. 2, with the degree of such curvature dependent
upon the distance that wire member 16 is pulled rearwardly
(id. at lines 58-66).
The examiner describes Gould as disclosing all of the
limitations of claim 38, except that the deflection control
element 21 of Gould is not anchored to the catheter wall
(final rejection, page 2). Jackowski is cited as teaching a
catheter having a deflection control element 16 anchored to
the catheter wall (id.). It is the examiner’s position that
[i]t would have been obvious, in view of Jackowski,
to anchor the deflection control element of Gould .
. . to the wall to better control the bending of the
distal tip. (Id.)
Appellant, on the other hand, argues (main brief, pages
10-13) that motivation is lacking for combining the teachings
of Gould and Jackowski along the lines of claim 38.
As both the examiner and appellant recognize, obviousness
cannot be established by combining the teachings of the prior
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007