Appeal No. 1999-2646
Application No. 08/794,398
“resorbable” as used by the appellants have the same meaning.
Thus, the “resorbable” limitation in claim 1 is met by the
reabsorbable rings or stents 1 disclosed by Duran ‘021 as they
exist prior to being covered with cloth for implantation.
Considered in context, the comments in Duran ‘021 relating to
permanent implantation merely mean that the annuloplasty rings
disclosed therein are not intended to be removed once
implanted. It is the implantation, and not the rings
themselves, which are described as being permanent. In any
event, to the extent that the claimed annuloplasty prosthesis
has a non-permanent nature by virtue of the “resorbable”
limitation, the reabsorbable rings or stents 1 disclosed by
Duran ‘021 as they exist prior to being covered with cloth for
implantation also have a non-permanent nature.
Thus, the appellants’ position that the subject matter
recited in claim 1 defines over Duran ‘021 is unconvincing.
We shall therefore sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of this claim as being anticipated by Duran ‘021.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 7 and 11 as being anticipated by
Duran ‘021 since these claims stand or fall with claim 1.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007