Appeal No. 2001-1939 Page 15
Application No. 09/072,605
We reach the same conclusion with regard to the step added to claim 1 by
dependent claim 13 concerning the differing radii of the inner and outer surface edges
of the stent, for Suzuki does not overcome the deficiencies set out above with regard to
Klein and Sawyer.
Independent claim 23 recites, inter alia, the limitations regarding streamlining the
edges of the inner stent surfaces while only polishing the outer stent surfaces. For the
reasons cited against claims 12 and 15, we also will not sustain the rejection of claim
23.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 7 and 10 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S.
Patent No. 5,746,691 in view of Suzuki is sustained.
The rejection of claims 14, 18, 19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Klein is sustained.
The rejection of claims 14, 18, 19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Klein in view of Sawyer is sustained.
The rejection of claims 15 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Klein in view of Sawyer is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Klein in view of Suzuki is sustained.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007