Appeal No. 1998-1552
Application 08/698,982
increased to the radius 60' or any intermediate desired size
to efficaciously cut away the unwanted material of lesion 18
as required” (column 5, lines 13-16). Nowhere is there even a
hint that the cutting device is intended to remove wall tissue
as well as plaque.
It therefore is our conclusion that the teachings of
Reiss fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
regard to the subject matter recited in the independent claims
24, 29, 30 and 31, and we will not sustain this rejection.
Claim 28, which depends from claim 24, stands rejected as
being unpatentable over Reiss in view of Fischell, which is
cited for its disclosure of utilizing helical cutting blades
in a device for removing atheromas. Be that as it may,
Fischell fails to alleviate the deficiency in Reiss that was
discussed above, and thus the two references considered
together fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to the subject matter of claim 18. We also will
not sustain that rejection.
SUMMARY
The rejections are not sustained.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007