Appeal No. 2002-1671 Page 17
Application No. 08/993,985
Claims 57 and 58
Claim 57 adds to parent claim 56 the further limitation that the graft layer is
disposed on an inside surface of the structural layer. Claim 58 adds to parent claim 56
the further limitation that the graft layer is disposed on an outside surface of the
structural layer.
The appellant argues (brief, p. 13) that the limitations of claims 57 and 58 are not
met by the combination of Chaikof and Berg. We agree. In that regard, the examiner
has not explained either (1) how the limitations of claims 57 and 58 are met by Chaikof
or (2) why it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Chaikof to arrive at the subject matter as set
forth in claim 57 or claim 58. Accordingly, the examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to claims 57 and 58. Accordingly, the decision
of the examiner to reject claim 57 and 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Chaikof in view of Berg is reversed.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 8 to 16, 59 to 62 and 67
Claims 2, 3, 6, 8 to 16, 59 to 62 and 67 which depend from either claim 1 or
claim 56 have not been separately argued by the appellants as required in 37 CFR
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007