Ex parte EBERHARDT - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2000-0897                                                        
          Application No. 08/570,373                                                  


               The references applied in the final rejection are:                     
          Angell et al. (Angell)          4,035,849           Jul. 19,                
          1977                                                                        
          Carpentier et al. (Carpentier)  4,106,129           Aug. 15,                
          1978                                                                        
          Wain                         GB 2 136 533 A         Sep. 19,                
          1984                                                                        
          (published Great Britain Patent Application)                                
               The claims on appeal stand finally rejection under 35                  
          U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the following combinations                
          of references:                                                              
               (1) Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 11-13, 22 and 23 Carpentier in                
          view of Wain;1                                                              
               (2) Claims 6, 7, 14 and 15, Carpentier in view of Wain                 
          and Angell.                                                                 
               On page 2 of the brief, appellant expressly and                        
          unequivocally states that the claims stand or fall together.                
          Therefore, we select claim 1 as the representative claim and                
          will decide this appeal on the basis of that claim alone.                   
               Claim 1 is drawn to a bioprosthetic heart valve                        
          comprising a stent having an annular frame defined by a                     

               1Claims 22 and 23 appear to have been inadvertently not                
          included in the statement of this rejection in the examiner’s               
          answer.                                                                     
                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007