Appeal No. 2000-0583
Application No. 08/955,984
In rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated by Levy, the
examiner takes the position that the Levy balloon is the same
as a balloon prepared by the steps recited in claim 1. We
note that Levy does not expressly refer to a step of drying
the tubing prior to expanding the tubing. In this regard,
however, the step of heating for one minute prior to the
application of pressure will, as we see it, inherently dry the
tubing to some extent. Therefore, the Levy balloon is, in
fact, prepared by the method steps recited in claim 1 and is
an oriented hollow balloon of thermoplastic material, as
recited in claim 1. Thus, in our opinion, each of the
limitations of claim 1 finds full response in Levy. In any
case, for the reasons which follow, even if Levy’s tubing is
not dried prior to the expanding step, we view the examiner’s
finding that Levy’s balloon is the same as a balloon prepared
by a method including a step of drying the extruded tubing
prior to the expansion step to be reasonable.
It is not apparent to us that a step of drying after the
extruding step and prior to the expanding step, per se,
results in a different product. From our perspective, a step
of drying would appear to affect the final product, if at all,
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007