Appeal No. 1999-2816 Page 3
Application No. 08/064,052
(id.) that “[t]he materials come in contact with blood during testing [and that] ‘a
remarkable reduction in thrombogenicity’ is demonstrated by compounds
containing a phosphatidylcholine group.” The examiner finds (Answer, page 5)
that Bird “suggests the use of the phosphatidyl choline [sic] material as a
biomaterial to be used in a device which would be implanted in the body (note,
e.g. the suggestion of benefits for grafts in an arterial tree, p. 481, second full
paragraph).” From this the examiner concludes (Answer, page 4) “[b]ecause the
prior art uses one of the materials specifically named in the present claims to
coat a surface, it is the examiner’s position that the lubricity of the surface which
is coated is increased and the thrombogenicity of the surface which is coated is
decreased.”
In response, appellant argues inter alia (Brief3, page 6) “the lubricity of the
coated components in Bird is not disclosed … [therefore,] a skilled person,
seeking a way of improving the lubricity of single-use disposable items which are
to be inserted into the body … would not be led to consider the teachings of Bird
as relevant.”
In response, the examiner argues (Answer, page 6) “that the benefits of
reduced thrombogenicity, alone, would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to apply a coating of the phosphatidylcholine
material to a surface of a device where reduced thrombogenicity was desired.”
3 Paper No. 28, received July 21, 1997.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007