Appeal No. 2002-1916
Application 09/332,772
The mere fact that Donadio does not expressly disclose use of the
lumen in catheter member (20) for receiving a guidewire having a
larger diameter than guidewire (95) seen in Figures 12 and 13 of
that patent does not mean that the lumen in catheter member (20)
is not capable of such use. Thus, it is our determination that
the catheter system seen in Donadio Figures 12 and 13 is fully
responsive to that set forth in claim 10 on appeal and fully
capable of the functional aspects set forth in that claim.
Since we have determined that the teachings which
would have been fairly derived from Donadio anticipate the sub-
ject matter of claim 10 on appeal, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of that claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). It follows
from appellants’ grouping of the claims on page 6 of the brief
that claims 11 through 18 will fall with claim 10, and that
the examiner’s various rejections of claims 11 through 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and § 103(a) will also be sustained.
With regard to the examiner’s rejection of claims 21
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Donadio, we observe that
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007