Appeal No. 2000-0180
Application No. 08/539,943
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the
combined teachings of Samson and Goy. Given appellant’s
grouping of the claims noted above, it follows that claims 3,
4 and 13 will fall with claim 1.
As for the examiner’s rejection of claims 5 through 12
and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Samson in view of Goy and Sugawara, we observe that appellant
has again argued that there is no motivation to modify the
catheter of Samson by adding an additional distally open-ended
lumen as disclosed in Goy. In addition, appellant has noted
that although Sugawara does mention the use of a dual lumen
catheter, it does not describe or show the structure of that
device. Thus, appellant concludes that the combination of
Samson and Goy in view of Sugawara does not render the
invention of claims 5 through 12 and 14 on appeal obvious.
For the reasons which we have set forth above in regard to the
examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we are of the view that the
combined teachings of the applied references would have
rendered obvious the subject matter of claim 5 on appeal. In
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007