Appeal No. 2001-1939 Page 13
Application No. 09/072,605
applied references that the inner surface edges should be abraded more than the outer
ones. This being the case, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 22.
The Rejection On The Basis Of Klein And Suzuki
This rejection is directed to claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 11, 16, 17 and 20. It is the
examiner’s position that Klein discloses all of the subject matter recited in independent
claim 1 except for disclosing a specific pressure for the abrasive media (between 300
and 800 psi), but that Suzuki’s disclosure of 450 psi would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art that this is suitable for use in the Klein method, thus rendering
the claim obvious. The appellant argues that Klein teaches away from the method
recited in claim 1, and that no suggestion exists for combining the teachings of the
references in the manner proposed by the examiner.
Klein was discussed above with regard to claim 14, and Suzuki with regard to the
double patenting rejection. We shall sustain this rejection of claim 1 on the basis of
essentially the same reasoning as we applied above with regard to the double patenting
rejection. To reiterate, the Klein method polishes the surfaces of a stent by extruding an
abrasive slurry through the stent in an axial direction with the media coming into contact
with the inner and outer surfaces of the stent, as well as flowing perpendicularly through
the openings in the stent (column 1, lines 8 and 9). The abrasive material is under
pressure (column 6, lines 64 and 65), but the level of pressure is not disclosed. We
agree with the examiner that Klein discloses all of the subject matter recited in claim 1
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007