Appeal No. 2001-1939 Page 12
Application No. 09/072,605
Also rejected on the basis of Klein and Sawyer are dependent claims 15 and 22.
Claim 15 adds to claim 14 the requirement that the flow of abrasive media past an outer
stent surface be maintained for a time “sufficient only to polish the outer stent surface.”
Since claim 14 requires that the abrasive be flowed until the edges of the inner stent
surface are streamlined, we interpret claim 15 to mean that the time sufficient to polish
the outer stent surface is less than that required to streamline the inner tent surface. In
any event, the examiner admits Klein does not streamline the edges of the inner stent
surface while only polishing the outer stent surface, and looks to Sawyer for this
teaching. However, while Sawyer does disclose streamlining the inner stent surfaces, it
is accomplished by bending, cold forming or machining (column 5, lines 17-20). It is our
view that the combined teachings of the two references would not have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art that the edges of the inner stent surfaces be exposed to
flowing abrasive media until the corners of the edges are streamlined while the outer
stent surfaces are exposed “only” until they are polished. Therefore, a prima facie case
of obviousness has not been established by the teachings of Klein and Sawyer with
regard to the subject matter of claim 15, and we will not sustain the rejection.
Claim 22 adds to claim 14 the requirement that the flowing step include
maintaining the flowing “for a length of time sufficient to abrade the edges of the inner
stent surface until said edges have a greater radii of curvature than radii of the outer
edges bordering an outer surface of the stent.” There is no teaching in either of the
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007