Appeal No. 2002-0396
Application No. 08/331,280
embodiment there is, inside the outer tube, a polyethylene inner
tube which necks down in the direction from the proximal end to
the distal end (col. 3, lines 23-26). Even if this tube were
removed at some intermediate point, however, the microtube
claimed in the appellants’ claim 9 would not be obtained because
there is no braid layer in Pray’s distal section.
The examiner, therefore, has not carried the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the microtube
claimed in the appellants’ claim 9.
Rejection of claim 11
The appellants’ claim 11 requires a tube wall comprising at
least two adjacent layers and having an outer surface and an
inner lumen, the cross section of the inner lumen being larger at
the proximal end than at the distal end.
The examiner argues that “Sepetka shows a tube which tapers
from one end to the other and which also comprises more than one
layer wherein the layers are adjacent to each other” (answer,
page 7). The appellants’ claim 11, however, requires that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007