Appeal No. 2000-0908
Application No. 08/763,728
cannula structure distinct from the cannula structure of Fecht
merely because appellant chooses to denominate the open side
of the cannula as the “rearward” surface and the closed side
of the cannula as the “forward” surface of the cannula’s
terminal end.
We do not agree with appellant’s contention on page 3 of
the reply brief that “the forward and rearward surfaces of the
cannula are defined with respect to the ascending aorta and
aortic arch.” From our perspective, appellant’s article
claims do not define any relationship between the cannula and
the anatomy of the heart that the cannula of Fecht would be
incapable of achieving. We also note appellant’s argument on
pages 8-9 of the main brief that the examiner has failed to
provide the requisite motivation or suggestion for the
proposed combination, and that Fecht teaches away from the
proposed combination; however, we simply disagree with
appellant in this regard. We therefore shall sustain the
standing § 103 rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2-5
that depend therefrom and have not been separately argued.
We shall also sustain the standing § 103 rejection of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007