Appeal No. 1998-2637 Page 3
Application No. 08/470,142
(6) Claim 82 on the basis of Horzewski and Grayzel
(7) Claims 127 and 128 on the basis of Everett.
(8) Claim 129 on the basis of Grayzel and Everett.
(9) Claim 155 on the basis of Dubrul and Everett.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 17) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief
(Paper No. 13)3 and Reply Brief (Paper No. 25) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The appellants’ invention is directed to a method of establishing communication
with the interior of a vessel in a human body, such as a sac, organ, tube, duct or canal. As
disclosed, the basic method utilizes a cannula comprising an elastic sheath which
3Although the examiner stated in Paper No. 14 that the Appeal Brief filed on June 9,
1997 (Paper No. 13) was defective, and required that a new Brief be filed, the Answer
indicates that it is in response to Paper No. 13. The appellants subsequently requested
that the substitute Brief (Paper No. 18) be ignored by the Board, which we have done.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007