Appeal No. 1999-0712 Page 3
Application No. 08/748,669
Reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 14) and the answer (Paper No. 15) for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner with regard to the merits of these
rejections.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
make the determinations which follow.
The appellants' brief (pages 4 and 5) states that claims 41, 51-54 and 58-61 stand or fall
together and claims 42-48, 50 and 55-57 stand or fall together. Therefore, we have decided
this appeal on the basis of representative claims 41 and 42, with claims 51-54 and 58-61
standing or falling with claim 41 and claims 43-48, 50 and 55-57 standing or falling with claim
42. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re
Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978).
Representative claims 41 and 42 read as follows:
41. A stent comprising:
a sheet of biocompatible material having a pattern in a surface of said
sheet, said pattern including in said sheet a plurality of cells, wherein said pattern
further includes a radiopaque marker at an end of said stent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007