Appeal No. 2003-1337
Serial No. 08/480,411
OPINION
The appellants do not challenge the obviousness-type double
patenting rejection (reply brief, page 15). We therefore
summarily affirm this rejection. As for the prior art
rejections, we affirm the rejections of claims 27 and 28 and
reverse the other rejections.
Rejection of claim 33 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Brooks
The examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima
facie case of anticipation by pointing out where all of the claim
limitations appear in a single reference. See In re Spada, 911
F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re King,
801 F.2d 1324, 1327, 231 USPQ 136, 138-39 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Brooks discloses a dilation catheter having a braid
layer (1)(col. 2, lines 40-43). The catheter has, at or near its
distal end, an inflatable portion wherein the braid layer has
fewer picks per inch than it has in the remainder of the catheter
(col. 2, line 60 - col. 3, line 2).
The examiner argues that “Brooks et al discloses a microtube
comprising a braid layer having relatively fewer picks per inch
at the proximate end and relatively more picks per inch at the
distal end and an outer resin layer. See col. 1, lines 35-62 and
col. 2, lines 40-64” (answer, page 4).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007