Appeal No. 2001-1939 Page 4
Application No. 09/072,605
flowing the abrasive media past the radially expandable surgical
stent in an axial direction with the abrasive media coming into physical
contact with the surfaces of the radially expandable surgical stent.
The Double Patenting Rejection
It is the examiner’s view that all of the subject matter recited in claim 1 is finds
correspondence in claims 1-5 of Frantzen except for the step of subjecting the abrasive
fluid media to an elevated pressure of between 300 and 800 psi. However, according
to the examiner, Suzuki teaches subjecting a workpiece to blasting with abrasive media
at a pressure of 450 psi, which falls within the claimed range, and it would have been
obvious to utilize this pressure in the Frantzen method. The appellant argues in reply
that Suzuki is directed to “blasting,” which is different from “polishing,” and that one of
ordinary skill in the art of manufacturing fragile items such as medical stents would not
seek to utilize the teachings of Suzuki because they would be destructive of the stent
(Brief, pages 4 and 5; Reply Brief, pages 1 and 2). As support for this position, the
appellant has submitted excerpts from a technical dictionary stating that “blasting”
means cleaning materials by a blast of air that blows small abrasive particles against
the surface, and “polishing” means smoothing and brightening a surface such as a
metal or rock through the use of abrasive materials (appendix to Reply Brief).
The Frantzen claims are directed to a method for polishing surfaces of a
cylindrical radially expandable stent. Claim 5 includes the step of “pressurizing the
abrasive media to a pressure above atmospheric pressure” while it flows past the stent,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007