Appeal No. 2002-1916
Application 09/332,772
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
As a preliminary matter, we note that on page 6 of the
brief appellants have indicated that claims 10 through 18 form
one patentably distinct group, while claims 21 and 22 form a
second patentably distinct group. Appellants then state that
the arguments presented “will only address the rejections of
independent claims 10 and 21.” Accordingly, we will treat
claims 10 and 21 in our discussions below and consider claims 11
through 18 and claim 22 as standing or falling with their
respective independent claim.
Looking first to the examiner's rejection of claims 10
through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we agree with the examiner
that Donadio discloses, in Figures 12 and 13, a catheter system
comprising a catheter member (20) including a lumen defining an
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007