Appeal No. 2000-0447
Application No. 08/838,685
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 15) for the
examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
the brief (Paper No. 14) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have give careful
consideration to the appellants’ specification and claims, the
applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
viewpoints articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7 and 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Gore. The examiner
found that Gore discloses:
. . . a catheter with a proximal section (25) that has a
tapered joint (40) that joins the intermediate section
(26). The intermediate section has a tapered joint (39)
that joins the distal section (27&28), see fig. 1. The
flexibility of the catheter increase from the proximal
end of the catheter tube (18) to the distal end (16), see
col. 4, lines 47-50. The distal portion (27&28) has a
relatively constant diameter, and there is another
portion of the distal section (28) that has a different
diameter. [answer at pages 3-4].
Appellants argue that Gore does not anticipate claim 1 because
Gore does not disclose a blood-flow directable catheter.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007