Appeal No. 1999-0512
Application No. 08/701,979
Claim 6, dependent from claim 1, sets forth that the cup
is rigid. More specifically, it is clear to us that what
claim 6 covers is a rigid cup at a proximal end portion of a
catheter acting in conjunction with a collar at a catheter
distal end portion, in the assembly of claim 1.
The Ryan document teaches a resilient end cap at a
proximal end of a catheter acting in conjunction with a
“stiff” tubular sheath (column 10, lines 9 through 15; Fig.
14). This stiff tubular sheath is connected to a slidable hub
94 such that in use the sheath moves towards a Y-fitting 22
and is withdrawn from the distal end of the catheter thereby
exposing the stent. The Ryan patent also discloses the use of
this stiff tubular sheath with two resilient distally and
proximally located end caps (column 10, lines 51 through 55).
Thus, it appears to us that Ryan alone would not have been
suggestive of a stiff (rigid) sheath as an alternative to a
flexible, proximally located end cap.
The patent to Susawa, additionally relied upon by the
examiner, teaches a silicone tube, without any indication as
to whether it is a rigid tube or not. Thus, from our
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007