Appeal No. 2003-1470
Application No. 08/847,763
appellants and by the examiner concerning the above noted
rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, none of these rejections
can be sustained.
The examiner finds that each of the primary references,
namely, Whitbourne, Marchant and Pinchuk discloses a coated
device for implantation within a lumen of the vascular system but
fails to disclose the specific surfaces of the device which
should be coated. Thus, the independent claims on appeal
distinguish over each of these primary references via the claim
requirement that the coating is exclusively deposited on surfaces
of the device body which are incapable of contacting the lumen
vessel walls. According to the examiner, however, it would have
been obvious for one with an ordinary level of skill in this art
to provide the primary reference devices with a coating
exclusively deposited on surfaces that are incapable of
contacting the vessel walls in view of either Ward or
De Goicoechea.
The examiner’s obviousness conclusion is not well founded.
As correctly argued by the appellants, neither Ward nor
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007