Appeal No. 2001-1939 Page 3
Application No. 09/072,605
Claims 12, 13 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Klein in view of Suzuki and Sawyer.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 14) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Brief (Paper No. 13) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 15) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Claim 1
A method for polishing surfaces of a cylindrical radially expandable
surgical stent including the steps of:
selecting an abrasiveness for particles within a fluid abrasive
media;
providing a source of the fluid abrasive media;
orienting the radially expandable surgical stent with a central axis
thereof extending in an axial direction;
subjecting the fluid abrasive media to elevated pressure
substantially between 300 and 800 p.s.i.; and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007