Appeal No. 1999-2800
Application No. 08/761,659
novelty of the claimed device lies in the method of making it,
but in any event, the examiner's argument to the effect that
there are no structural differences between the Samson
catheter and the catheter recited in claim 1 is not well
taken. Claim 1 recites a particular combination of
cooperating structural elements, namely, a catheter section
comprising a tubular member which has a second form but is
held or maintained by a polymeric covering in a first form
until the restraint of the covering is so removed (by heating)
that the tubular member can assume its second form. By
contrast, Samson discloses a different combination, in that
the tubular member (braid) does not have two forms; rather, it
is formed into one form, and remains in that form, instead of
being held in a different form by the polymeric covering.
Accordingly, since Samson does not disclose all the
structure recited in claim 1, the rejection of that claim
under
§ 102(e), as well as of dependent claims 2 to 7, will not be
sustained.
The rejection of dependent claims 8 to 17 under § 103(a)
will likewise not be sustained, since, as discussed above,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007