Appeal No. 2000-0897
Application No. 08/570,373
Appellant does not appear to dispute the examiner’s
determination that it would have been obvious to locate the
biological valve member of Carpentier so that it extends to
but not around the support rail in view of Wain’s teachings.
Appellant contends, however, that the claimed subject matter
would not result even when Carpentier is so modified. In
particular, appellant asserts that neither of the applied
references teaches or suggests a biological valve member that
extends “directly underneath” the support rail. More
specifically, appellant argues (brief, pages 2-3) that
each of the cited references discloses a structure
in which a mandatory structural member other than
the biological tissue is located directly underneath
the support rail. The combined teachings of the
references would, therefore, produce a structure
which also had a mandatory structural member other
than the biological tissue located directly
underneath the support rail. The claimed invention
requires the exact opposite: the claims positively
recite that the tissue is directly underneath the
support rail.
. . . . What the Examiner fails to appreciate
is that Wain’s tissue is already displaced from the
claimed position, with no suggestion at all that it
could be located directly beneath the rail . . . .
[The tissue of Wain is] displaced laterally from the
position directly underneath the rail regardless of
the longitudinal extent. Thus, when the person of
ordinary skill looks at what Wain and Carpentier et
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007