Appeal No. 2000-0447
Application No. 08/838,685
55A and 75A shore. Gore discloses that the distal portion is
comprised of a polyurethane (col. 5, lines 29 to 41). In addition,
as argued by the examiner:
. . . the diameter of the proximal section of Appellants’
catheter is typically between 2.9 F and 3.5 F.
Similarly, the diameter of proximal section of the Gore
catheter is 3 F. The diameter of the distal section of
Appellants’ catheter is preferably between 1 F. and
2.5 F. Similarly, the diameter of the distal section of
the Gore catheter is 2.5 F. [answer at pages 8 to 9].
The examiner further states that:
Furthermore, even if one considers the phrase to “breathe
life and meaning,” those limitations incorporated from
Appellants’ Specification concerning materials and sizes
are either identical to or very similar to those of Gore
et al. [answer at page 10].
In essence the examiner argues that the Gore catheter is inherently
flow directable. While it is possible that the Gore catheter may
be flow directable because of the identity of the size of the
catheter and the similarity in the shore hardness of the various
sections of the catheter, mere possibilities are not enough. The
Gore disclosure does not mention flow directability. The shore
hardness of the Gore distal section which is an important in view
of the feature of flow directability is 80 A while the disclosed
distal section has a shore hardness of 55A to 75A (specification
at page 5). In addition, the Gore catheter is provided with by a
helical coil reinforcement 42 which may affect the flexibility and
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007