Appeal No. 2001-2004 Page 2
Application No. 08/956,715
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to an implantable medical device. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1,
which has been reproduced below.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Scales et al. (Scales) 4,476,590 Oct. 16, 1984
Fox, Jr. et al. (Fox) 5,019,096 May 28, 1991
Bosley 5,289,831 Mar. 1, 1994
Burrell et al. (Burrell) 5,454,886 Oct. 3, 1995
Schwartz et al. (Schwartz) 5,607,463 Mar. 4, 1997
Ragheb et al. (Ragheb) 5,873,904 Feb. 23, 1999
(filed Feb. 24, 1997)
The rejections before us on appeal:
(1) Claims 1-12 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of Ragheb in view of Bosley.
The following under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
(2) Claims 1-3 on the basis of Bosley.
(3) Claims 1 and 2 on the basis of Scales in view of Bosley.
(4) Claims 1-3 and 6-10 on the basis of Burrell in view of Bosley.
(5) Claims 4 and 5 on the basis of Burrell in view of Bosley and Fox.
(6) Claims 11-14 on the basis of Burrell in view of Bosley and Schwartz.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007