Appeal No. 2000-1995
Application No. 08/850,277
the particular problems posed by blood flow sets of the sort
disclosed by Utterberg or the advantageous solutions thereto
embodied by the claimed invention which are documented in the
appellant’s specification and in the Utterberg declaration.
In this light, we are satisfied that the evidence before us
does not justify the examiner’s conclusion that the
differences between the subject matter recited in independent
claims 1, 5, 10, 14, 18 and 19 and the prior art are such that
the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
in the art.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 5, 10, 14, 18 and 19, or of
dependent claims 2 through 4, 6 through 8, 11, 12 and 15
through 17, as being unpatentable over Utterberg in view of
Reed.
As a final matter, upon return of the application to the
technology center, the examiner may wish to consider whether
U.S. Patent No. 5,360,395 raises a double patenting issue with
respect to the claims in the instant application. According
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007