Appeal No. 1999-0701
Application No. 08/705,005
perfusion dilation catheter of Blackshear based on Sahota.
Our own review of the applied references reveals nothing which
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
perfusion catheter of Blackshear based on the catheter in
Sahota so as to result in the subject matter set forth in
appellants' claims on appeal.
As for the examiner's position that the requirement in
claim 3 on appeal "would be inherent and obvious" (final
rejection, page 3), we see no basis in Blackshear to support
any such position and are in agreement with appellants'
argument on page 11 of their brief. Regarding independent
claim 11 and the claims which depend therefrom, we share
appellants' view as set forth on page 12 of their brief that
there is nothing in Blackshear or Sahota which would have been
suggestive to one of ordinary skill in the art of a perfusion
brace as defined in claim 11 that is "slidable onto a
collapsed dilation balloon of a catheter to transform the
catheter into a perfusion balloon catheter." Like appellants
(brief, page 12), we also see no basis in the applied
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007