Appeal No. 2000-0908
Application No. 08/763,728
toward the ascending aorta and away from the aortic arch.
Appellant’s invention also pertains to a method of providing
blood to the aorta (claim 11), and a method of cannulization
for heart by-pass surgery (claim 20). A further understanding
of the invention can be derived from a reading of
representative claims 1 and 11, which appear in the appendix
to appellant’s main brief (Paper No. 14).
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Fecht 4,795,446 Jan. 03,
1989
Cosgrove et al. (Cosgrove) 5,643,226 Jul. 01,
1997
(filed Oct. 6,
1994)
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11 and 15-20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fecht in view of
Cosgrove.
Reference is made to appellant’s main and reply briefs
(Paper Nos. 14 and 18) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No.
17) for the respective positions of appellant and the examiner
regarding the merits of this rejection.
Looking first at claim 1, this claim is directed to an
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007