Appeal No. 2000-0908
Application No. 08/763,728
obvious to modify the distal end of Fecht’s cannula to direct
the flow of blood in a more radial and less axial direction to
gain the advantages set forth in Cosgrove (i.e., more diffused
blood flow that reduces “jet” flow and thus decreases the
chances of thrombi from dislodging from the walls of the
aorta), and the examiner’s bottom line position that (2) the
modified Fecht cannula would result in the subject matter of
claim 1.
Concerning (2), appellant argues (main brief, page 7)
that Fecht’s cannula and manner of use are precisely the
opposite of that which is claimed. More specifically,
appellant contends that, in contrast to appellant’s cannula,
Fecht’s cannula has an opening in the forward facing surface
of the cannula and no opening in the rearward facing surface
of the cannula, and that, in use, Fecht’s cannula is
positioned with the forward (open) sidewall facing the aortic
arch and the rearward (closed) sidewall facing the ascending
aorta. While we appreciate that Fecht’s Figure 1 appears to
show the cannula thereof positioned in the aorta with the
opening in the tip facing the aortic arch, appellant’s
argument is not well taken with respect to claims such as
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007