Appeal No. 2000-0908
Application No. 08/763,728
The cannulas 20 and 20’ of this invention thus
reduce maximum flow velocity, the variation in flow
velocity, and the maximum flow force, while
maintaining the overall flow rate. These reductions
are believed to be significant in the reduction of
thrombo-atheroembolisms, and other possible
complications of heart surgery.
In rejecting claim 1 as being unpatentable over Fecht in
view of Cosgrove, it is the examiner’s position that Fecht
discloses an aortic cannula that corresponds to the aortic
cannula called for in the claim except perhaps for a clear
disclosure of an inverted cup at the terminal end of the
cannula. The examiner considers, however, that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to modify
Fecht by providing the inverted cup of Cosgrove et al. at the
terminal end [of Fecht’s cannula] in order to improve the
deflection of the blood flow outwardly as shown by Cosgrove et
al.” (answer, pages 4-5). Implicit in the rejection is the
examiner’s position that the modified cannula of Fecht would
correspond structurally to the cannula set forth in claim 1 in
all respects.
The positions taken by the examiner in rejecting claim 1
are well founded. In particular, we are in agreement with the
examiner’s bottom line position that (1) it would have been
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007