Appeal No. 2000-0908
Application No. 08/763,728
claims 7, 9, 10 and 15-19, all of which are directed to the
cannula per se, as being unpatentable over Fecht in view of
Cosgrove. As to claim 7, the claim language calling for “the
forward surface being free from openings” does not distinguish
over the cannula of Fecht for the reasons discussed above.
Concerning claim 15, the modified Fecht cannula would have an
“inverted cup” at the end thereof. In the matter of claim 17,
the intended use recitation therein calling for an opening
“oriented so as to direct blood from the tube outwardly only
in the direction of the ascending aorta” does not distinguish
over the applied prior art because Fecht’s cannula reasonably
appears to be capable of functioning as claimed. As to the
requirement of claim 16 that the inverted cup has “an apex
angle of at least 10E,” we agree with the examiner that this
feature appears to be met by Cosgrove’s distal end 40. See,
for example, the inner peripheral wall of Cosgrove’s distal
end 40 as illustrated in Figure 6B. In any event, in that
appellant’s specification states on page 4 that an apex angle
of between about 10E and about 45E is merely preferred, we
consider that an apex angle of at least 10E for the inverted
cup, as called for in claim 16, is merely a matter of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007