Appeal No. 2002-1403 Page 10
Application No. 09/323,783
means for retaining the stent to the balloon catheter because it could be easily
removed without injuring the vessel.[4]
Even if the examiner were correct that the limitations of claims 27, 28 and 32 to
37 would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary
skill in the art, this would not result in the claimed subject matter since all the limitations
of claims 25 and 29 are not disclosed in Schatz for the reasons set forth above. In
addition, the examiner has not set forth any reasoning or rationale as to why the
limitations of claims 25 and 29 not disclosed in Schatz would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner to reject claims 27, 28 and 32 to 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
4 Claims 27, 28 and 33 to 35 recite a sleeve positioned around the stent. Hillstead's sleeve 40 is
not positioned around the stent 32. However, Schatz's sheath 89 is positioned around the graft 70 as
shown in Figure 3. Claims 32, 36 and 37 do not recite any sleeve and it is unclear to us how the examiner
is rejecting these claims since the examiner has not even asserting that the subject matter of these claims
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007