Appeal No. 1998-2095
Application No. 08/460,311
between the graft and the inner wall of said vessel. Instead,
claim 39 calls for
. . . compressing an intraluminal vascular graft
structure to provide a reduced circumferential dimension
sized to be receivable within said transportation
structure, said intraluminal vascular graft structure
comprising a tubular
body having an expandable frame structure including a
circumferential support structure positioned to contact
and
span the bifurcation of a bifurcated vessel . . . and
supporting said intraluminal vascular graft structure
within said bifurcated vessel by positioning said
circumferential support structure at the bifurcation of
the bifurcated vessel to be supported by the bifurcation.
. . .
Appellant argues that “[a] method of supporting a
vascular graft on the cusp of a bifurcated vessel by use of a
circumferential support is not disclosed by either Lazarus
‘399 or Barone, et al.” (Brief, page 9). The examiner’s
position is that the language “vascular graft structure
comprising a tubular body having an expandable frame structure
including a circumferential support structure positioned to
contact and span the bifurcation of a bifurcated vessel” is
unclear and can be construed to mean that it is the vascular
graft, not the circumferential support structure, which is
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007