Appeal No. 1999-1959 Page 3
Application No. 08/881,586
the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants’ specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Appellants do not contest the examiner’s rejection of
claims 28-39 under the judicially created doctrine of double
patenting and have indicated that they will file a terminal
disclaimer when the pending claims are found allowable over
the cited prior art (brief, page 13). Accordingly, we
summarily sustain the examiner’s rejection.
Turning now to the examiner’s rejection of claims 28-39
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we note that appellants’ brief (page
8) states that claims 28-39 stand or fall together.
Therefore, in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), we shall
decide this appeal on the basis of claim 28, with claims 29-39
standing or falling therewith.
De Toledo discloses a guide wire comprising a core (wires
17, 18 joined together at coupling sleeve 24). A radiopaque,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007