Appeal No. 2000-0583
Application No. 08/955,984
Claims 27, 28 and 30 are substantially the same as claim
1, except that claims 27, 28 and 30, respectively, recite a
group of at least 6, 10 and 30 oriented balloons of the type
recited in claim 1.
While Levy indicates an objective to provide balloons
(column 1, line 40) which exhibit physical properties, for
example, toughness, flexibility and tensile strength, superior
to those exhibited by prior art balloons, Levy does not
expressly disclose fabricating a group of at least 6, 10 or 30
such balloons. Therefore, we cannot sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 27, 28 and 30, or claim 29 which depends
from claim 28, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Levy.
The examiner, however, has alternately rejected claims
27-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Levy.
It is apparent to us that one of ordinary skill in the art,
having read the disclosure of Levy and understanding that
Levy’s objective was to make balloons having applicability in
a variety of surgeries performed at different hospitals and on
different patients, would have contemplated a need for at
least 30 such balloons and, accordingly, would have been
17
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007