Appeal No. 2002-1403 Page 9
Application No. 09/323,783
are being moved along the body passageway 80 into position, we fail to see, and the
examiner has not explained, how that residual air would be considered to be a partial
inflation of the balloon to secure the graft onto the balloon. Likewise, while balloon 88
of Schatz must be expanded to some degree in order to engage the graft 70 for
deployment, we fail to see, and the examiner has not explained, how that fact would be
a partial inflation of the balloon to secure the graft onto the balloon rather than being
the expanding and deploying step set forth in step (f) of independent claim 25 and 29.
For the reasons set forth above, all the limitations of claims 25 and 29 are not
disclosed in Schatz. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 25 and
29, and claims 26, 30 and 31 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
The obviousness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 27, 28 and 32 to 37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Schatz in view of Hillstead.
In the rejection of claims 27, 28 and 32 to 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 the
examiner concluded (final rejection, p. 3) that in view of Hillstead's teaching of an
elastic sleeve positioned about and around a balloon catheter that
[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to take the invention of Schatz and utilize a "sleeve" as a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007