Appeal No. 2000-0673
Application No. 08/960,276
disclosed by Vieth and the fact that in Example 3, where the
coating was deposited on flat stainless steel electrodes,
Vieth discloses that, as compared to conventional casting,
electrodeposited films "showed very little disintegration of
the film, even after repeated use" (col. 9, lines 22 to 28).
Appellants also note that one purpose of the Vieth
process was to allow the use of less pure materials, but in
our view this is somewhat beside the point, since there is
nothing in Vieth which precludes the use of electrodeposition
for depositing pure materials, as would be used to coat the
stent of McNamara. In fact, one of ordinary skill who
intended to deposit a high-purity collagen coating containing
a protein would be further motivated to use electrodeposition
by Vieth's disclosure that the enzyme (protein) is purified
during the electrodeposition process
(col. 7, lines 46 to 65).
Accordingly, we conclude that claim 55, as well as claims
56, 57 and 59 which appellants have grouped therewith (brief,
page 5), are prima facie obvious over the combined teachings
of McNamara and Vieth, and will sustain rejection (1).
Rejection (2)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007