Appeal No. 2000-0651
Application No. 09/024,732
provide an indication when the distal end portion of the
tubular drain body member has been inserted into the patient’s
urinary bladder, removal of the tubular stiffening device
following receipt of the signal allowing the distal end
portion of the tubular drain body member to reform the bladder
retention coil.
We turn now to the applied Sachse and Carter patents.
Sachse teaches a ureter tube for splinting a ureter and
Carter discloses a ureteral stent. Notwithstanding the
dispute between appellant and the examiner relative to the
examiner’s view that the references teach devices capable of
performing as a urethral drain apparatus, as explained below,
it is quite apparent to us that independent claim 9 clearly
recites features that we discern would not have been obvious
based upon the evidence before us.
We appreciate that the Sachse patent makes reference to
ureter tubes, otherwise known as “pig tail” tubes because of
their curved shape, i.e., because of the inherent curvature in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007