Appeal No. 1999-2646
Application No. 08/794,398
distortion of the valve in use such as would impair
proper sealing of the valve cusps [column 2, lines
25 through 32].
The examiner has concluded that “[i]t would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have
utilized the collar [presumably base ring 2] of Ross et al.
with the resorbable prosthesis of Duran [’021] to increase the
structural integrity of the prosthesis” (answer, page 7). The
purpose and function of Ross’ collar (base ring 2), however,
have no appreciable relevance to the annuloplasty rings or
stents disclosed by Duran ‘021. Thus, the appellants’
contention (see pages 15 and 16 in the main brief) that the
proposed combination of Duran ‘021 and Ross rests solely on
impermissible hindsight is well taken.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 6 as being unpatentable over Duran
‘021 in view of Ross.
VI. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 18 as being
unpatentable over Duran ‘021 in view of Duran ‘297
Claim 18 depends ultimately from claim 1 and further
defines the resorbable member as being porous. This feature
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007