Appeal No. 1998-3366
Application No. 08/591,506
the core after the stent is released. Based on these
teachings,
the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art:
to modify Lau’s temporary adhesive on the balloon
with the adhesive grip member as taught by Burton so
as to remain on the stent mounting portion upon
release of the stent from the stent mounting
portion. In addition, whether choosing a temporary
or a permanent adhesive is considered as a matter of
design choice since it appears that the
bioresorbable temporary adhesive would perform
equally well with the permanent adhesive on the
balloon for securing the stent on the balloon of the
catheter. [Answer, pages 4-5.]
Implicit in the above is the examiner’s position that the
above modified catheter system of Lau would correspond in all
respects to the subject matter of claim 1.
We will not sustain this rejection.
Our first difficulty with the examiner’s rejection
concerns the failure of the references to suggest, either
individually or collectively, a reason for the proposed
modification. In this regard, the examiner’s rationale that
the proposed modification of Lau would have been obvious “as a
matter of design choice” and/or because each of the
bioresorbable temporary adhesive of Lau and the so-called
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007