Appeal No. 2002-1671 Page 14
Application No. 08/993,985
material including polymers, and (2) Berg's teaching that a bioabsorbable polymer is
probably more desirable than a biostable polymer since the bioabsorbable polymer will
not be present long after implantation to cause any adverse, chronic local response.
The appellants' argument is unpersuasive since the claimed subject matter is
suggested by the combined teachings of Chaikof and Berg for the reasons set forth
above. The combined teachings of Chaikof and Berg do suggest the combination of a
bioabsorbable self-expandable stent and a permanent graft since Chaikof teaches the
combination of a self-expandable stent and a permanent graft while Berg's suggests
making Chaikof's self-expandable stent from a bioabsorbable material. As to the
appellants' argument concerning the deficiencies of each reference on an individual
basis, it is well established that nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the
references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chaikof in view of Berg is affirmed.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007