Appeal No. 2000-0651
Application No. 09/024,732
the view of appellant, we are of the opinion that one having
ordinary skill in this art would have comprehended each of
Sachse and Carter as revealing stiffening devices that are
solid mandrins or cores or that are combined tubular and solid
mandrin or core devices. Irrespective of the noted
alternatives, a solid mandrin or core effects straightening
and reforming of a ureter tube in the applied teachings.
Thus, the applied teachings would not have been suggestive of
a unitary tubular stiffening device, as set forth in claim 9.
Since the evidence relied upon by the examiner lacks a
teaching or suggestion of features of the claimed urethral
drain apparatus, as above, we cannot sustain the rejection of
appellant’s claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007