Appeal No. 2002-1117
Application No. 09/569,607
therein "strongly resembles appellants' device" and that the
device of Berg '416
can be used within a graft by the same method of
appellants' or a maybe a different method and is
properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Berg et al. A recitation with respect
to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended
to be employed does not differentiate the claimed
apparatus from the prior art apparatus satisfying the
structural limitations of the that [sic] claimed
(answer, page 5).
Having reviewed and evaluated Berg '416, we share
appellants' assessment of the rejection on appeal and agree with
appellants that Berg '416 does not disclose, teach or suggest a
connector including "a structure which is annularly continuous
and configured for disposition annularly within the inside of the
tubular graft conduit" and having a plurality of first and second
members extending from the structure as recited in claim 1 on
appeal, with the first members
being configured to pass through the side wall of the
tubular graft conduit at respective locations that are
spaced from one another around the side wall of the
tubular graft conduit, and the first and second members
being further configured to reach respective locations
on the side wall of the tubular body conduit that are
spaced annularly around the aperture when the connector
is in use and the first and second members are
extending substantially radially out from the
structure.
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007