Appeal No. 2002-0396
Application No. 08/331,280
outer wall preferably is of substantially constant diameter along
the three sections which have an inner tube (col. 3, lines 59-
61). The examiner has not pointed out a disclosure in Sepetka of
an outer wall having an inner lumen which decreases in diameter
or cross section from the proximal end to the distal end.
The examiner argues that Pray discloses an inner tube having
an inner diameter which is larger at the proximal end than at the
distal end (answer, page 7). The appellants’ claim 11, however,
requires that the inner lumen of the outer wall has a larger
cross section at the proximal end than at the distal end. The
inner tube referred to by the examiner (tube 24, figure 1) is not
part of the outer wall (col. 3, line 5).
Hence, the examiner has not carried the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the microtube
claimed in the appellants’ claim 11.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007