Ex parte INDERBITZEN et al. - Page 2




                     Appeal No. 1999-0701                                                                                                                                              
                     Application No. 08/705,005                                                                                                                                        


                     6 have been canceled.                                                                                                                                             


                     Appellants' invention relates to a dilation catheter for                                                                                                          
                     percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty procedures                                                                                                         
                     (PTCA), and more particularly to dilation catheters for use in                                                                                                    
                     PTCA procedures wherein blood is perfused distally of the                                                                                                         
                     dilation balloon during the inflation cycle of the balloon, as                                                                                                    
                     well as to a method for converting a standard dilation balloon                                                                                                    
                     to a perfusion balloon.  Independent claims 1, 11, 16 and 23                                                                                                      
                     are representative of the subject matter on appeal and a copy                                                                                                     
                     of those claims may be found in the Appendix to appellants'                                                                                                       
                     brief.                                                                                                                                                            


                     The prior art references of record relied upon by the                                                                                                             
                     examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:1                                                                                                                   


                                1 As indicated in Paper No. 28, mailed August 19, 1998,                                                                                                
                     the examiner's listing of the Gurbel et al. patent on page 3                                                                                                      
                     of the examiner's answer was in error and this patent is not                                                                                                      
                     being relied upon for rejecting the claims before us on                                                                                                           
                     appeal.  Likewise, we note that the examiner's listing of                                                                                                         
                     claims "1-5" on page 4 of the answer as being rejected on                                                                                                         
                     Blackshear is in error.  Claim 2 has been canceled and claims                                                                                                     
                     3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable                                                                                                      
                     over Blackshear in view of Sahota.  It appears that the                                                                                                           
                                                                                          2                                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007