Appeal No. 2000-1934 Page 9
Application No. 08/779,420
Muto does disclose a catheter outer diameter of 0.18
inches (col. 2, l. 66), which falls within the range recited
in appellants' claim 10. Further, given the inner diameter of
0.108 inches specified by Muto (col. 2, l. 67), the portion of
the cross-sectional area of the catheter comprised by the
lumens is 36%, thus falling within the range recited in claim
10. However, we, like the examiner, find no specific
teachings with regard to the modulus of elasticity, specific
gravity and durometer of Muto's catheter. It is quite
apparent from appellants' disclosure (specification, p. 9)
that the recited combination of dimensions and material
properties assists in achieving the required softness and
flexibility of appellants' catheter. Accordingly, the
examiner's characterization of these properties as merely
obvious design choice is, in our opinion, inappropriate.
Furthermore, even assuming, as the examiner seems to suggest,
that a PVC material having the recited material properties was
known in the art at the time of appellants' invention, the
examiner's recognition that various grades of PVC material,
having different material properties, were known at the time
of appellants' invention, belies the examiner's assertion that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007