Appeal No. 2001-1939 Page 14
Application No. 09/072,605
except for the recited range of pressure. Suzuki teaches that areas of roughness can
be removed from workpieces by a stream of abrasive particle water slurry at 450 psi.
As was the case above, we agree with the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to utilize Suzuki’s suggested pressure of 450 psi in the
Klein system. In addition, we again point out that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have known that the amount of pressure used would be a result effective variable, that
is, too much pressure would damage a stent, and would have optimized the pressure to
accomplish the desired task. See In re Antonie, supra.
The like rejection of dependent claims 2, 7 and 10 also is sustained in view of
the fact that they were grouped with claim 1 (Brief, page 4). The separate patentability
having not been argued, the rejection of claims 9, 11, 16, 17 and 20 over Klein in view
of Suzuki also is sustained.
The Rejection On The Basis Of Klein, Suzuki And Sawyer
This rejection is directed to claims 12, 13 and 23. Claim 12 adds to claim 1 the
limitation that the abrasive media is flowed past the stent for a length of time sufficient
to abrade the edges of the inner stent surface until they are streamlined in shape, and
past the outer stent surface “only” until this surface is polished. We concluded above
with regard to claim 22 that this limitation was not rendered obvious by the teachings of
Klein and Sawyer. Further consideration of Suzuki does not alter this decision, and we
therefore will not sustain the rejection of claim 12.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007