Appeal No. 1998-1552
Application 08/698,982
Claims 24-27 and 29-31 stand rejected as being
unpatentable over Reiss, which is directed to an atherectomy
cutter. It is the examiner’s position that “[t]he radial size
of the Reiss cutting head is obviously enlarged beyond that of
the radial size of the artery in view of the close sliding fit
therebetween,” from which he concludes that “[s]ome wall
tissue is obviously cut during the Reiss procedure due to the
close proximity of the blades relative to the wall tissue”
(Answer, page 3). We do not agree. While the Reiss cutting
head might be capable of removing wall tissue in addition to
plaque, there is no teaching in Reiss for operating it in such
a fashion. Nor, in our view, is there a basis from which it
can be concluded that the Reiss cutting head inherently
performs the appellant’s claimed method. From our
perspective, Reiss makes it clear that the cutting head
removes only the offending tissue. In this regard, we note
the following statements: “the cutting device can then be
controllably expanded . . . for cutting obstructive tissue
from the lumen” (column 2, lines 62-64); “it is desired that
some or all of the lesion 18 be cut away by cutting device 10"
(column 3, lines 36 and 37); and “the cutting action can be
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007