Appeal No. 2000-0897
Application No. 08/570,373
support rail (element 36 in Figure 7), and a biological valve
member (element 22 in Figure 7) defining a tubular wall and a
plurality of leaflets. The claim limitation that is the focus
of this appeal is the requirement that the biological valve
member extends “directly underneath, but not . . . around, the
support rail.”
The examiner found (answer, page 3) that “[t]he
difference between Carpentier and the claimed invention is the
placement of the biological valve member to extend to but not
around the support rail.” The examiner also found (answer,
page 3) that the biological valve member of Wain “extends to
but not around the support rail to permit a larger valve
orifice.” Based on these findings, the examiner concluded
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art “to have located the biological valve member of
Carpentier to extend to but not around the support rail,
because this placement would have enabled the Carpentier
device to form a larger valve orifice as taught by GB ‘533
(Wain).” Implicit in the above is the examiner’s position
that the modified Carpentier valve member would correspond to
the claimed heart valve in all respects.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007