Appeal No. 1998-3366
Application No. 08/591,506
“permanent adhesive” of Burton “would perform equally well” is
not sufficient.
Furthermore, the disparate ways in which the stents of
Lau and Burton are deployed cannot be ignored in considering
the question of obviousness presented in this appeal. As is
clear from a reading of Burton, the function of the adhesive
9A is to prevent the stent 10 from moving axially relative to
the core 5. Thus, Burton’s adhesive 9A is akin to a friction
enhancing element. When the outer sleeve 1 of Burton is
withdrawn backward toward the handle of the core, the stent’s
ability to self-expand is sufficient by itself to break the
bond of adhesive 9A. In Lau, the temporary bioresorbable
adhesive referred to at column 2, lines 24-25, intimately
bonds the stent and the inflatable portion of the catheter
together to form a catheter-stent assembly that remains intact
until the bond is ruptured by forces resulting from inflation
of the inflatable portion of the catheter. Given these
differences in operation, we consider the proposed
modification of Lau in view Burton to be a hindsight
reconstruction based on appellants’ teachings rather than on
anything that is fairly taught by the references themselves.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007