Appeal No. 1999-2646
Application No. 08/794,398
claims 8 through 10 as being unpatentable over Duran ‘021 in
view of Duran ‘297 and the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 12 and 13 as being unpatentable over Duran
‘021 in view of Buscemi since all of these claims stand or
fall with claims 1 and 14.
V. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 6 as being
unpatentable over Duran ‘021 in view of Ross
Claim 6 depends ultimately from claim 1 and further
requires the resorbable member to include a collar extending
therefrom for attachment to the aortic complex above the
commissures. The collar facilitates such attachment and
contributes to a remodeling of the aortic complex (see page 22
in the underlying specification). The examiner concedes (see
page 7 in the answer) that Duran ‘021 does not disclose such a
collar.
Ross discloses a metal stent 1 for supporting an aortic
replacement valve 17, the stent comprising a base ring 2 and
three legs 3, 4 and 5 extending therefrom. Ross teaches that
when the stent has a valve installed therein and the
valve is subjected to pressure conditions such as
those to which it would be subjected when installed
within a heart, the base ring should not deform to
any substantial extent. . . . [R]igidity of the
base ring is important to guard against unnatural
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007