Appeal No. 2000-0583
Application No. 08/955,984
material intrinsic viscosity, tension, pressure, wall
thickness, inner and outer diameters, etc.) disclosed by Levy,
a fact which has not been established by appellants, Levy’s
balloon reasonably appears to be the same as a balloon
prepared by the process steps recited in the claims. Merely
by way of example, Levy’s balloon reasonably appears to be the
same as a balloon prepared by extruding a hollow tube of PET
material, drying the tube to a moisture content within the
claimed range and subsequently expanding the tube, albeit
perhaps with a step of storing the dried tube in a humid
environment prior to the expanding step.
For the foregoing reasons, it is our opinion that a prima
facie case has been established that the Levy balloon is the
same as the balloon recited in claims 2-4. Further, for the
reasons cited above with regard to claim 1, the examples in
appellants’ specification do not persuade us that Levy’s
balloon does not possess the characteristics of the balloon
recited in claims 2-4. Accordingly, we shall sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 2-4 as being anticipated by
Levy.
Claims 27-30
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007