Appeal No. 2000-0583
Application No. 08/955,984
balloon prepared by extruding a hollow tube of PET, drying the
tube to a moisture content lower than that of Levy’s tubing,
storing the tube in a humid environment for a sufficient
period of time to restore the tube to its moisture content
prior to drying, and then expanding the tube.
As for the “thereby...” clause in claim 1, we note that
Levy’s balloon has a burst pressure (strength) of from 480 to
525 psi, which is higher than the burst pressure of a
reference balloon, such as the control or comparative balloons
in appellants' Examples 1-3, which are made according to the
method steps recited in claim 1, except for the drying step,
and which exhibit burst pressures of about 323 psi (Table 1),
318 psi (Table 2) and 327-328 psi (Table 3).
Appellants point out on page 7 of the brief that
appellants use a starting material of a PET having a lower
molecular weight and a lower intrinsic viscosity than that of
Levy and thus produce a structurally different balloon than
that of Levy. While this may be true, the broad terminology
“in the same manner,” as discussed above, does not require
that the reference balloon, relative to which the claimed
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007