Appeal No. 1999-2800
Application No. 08/761,659
as claimed. Moreover, as disclosed by appellants at page 23,
line 17 to page 24, line 21, in making their disclosed
catheter section the braid is heat treated on a mandrel having
the shape of the second form, and then reformed into the first
form, with the polymeric covering being applied to hold it in
the first form. No such procedure is disclosed by Samson, but
rather, the heat treatment disclosed at col. 11, lines 43 to
53, appears to be used simply to preserve the shape of the
braid in one particular form. Certainly there is no
disclosure that after the braid has been heated to form it
into one form (shape), the
polymeric covering is used to hold the braid in another form
(shape).
The examiner also argues on page 7 of the answer:
The applicant [sic] further argues the novelty of the
device relies [sic: lies] in the method of making the device.
Such is like an intended use argument-if there are no
structural limitations to back up such allegations then the
device remains unpatentable. The fact remains that if you set
the devices [of appellants and of Samson] side by side on a
table the applicant [sic] has relied upon no structural
limitation overcoming this reference.
We do not find any argument in appellants' brief that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007