Appeal No. 2003-1470
Application No. 08/847,763
proposed by the examiner. This is because, as correctly
explained by the appellants, patentee explicitly and repeatedly
teaches depositing a heparin coating on both the outer as well as
the inner surfaces of the prosthesis (e.g., see the first
sentence of the Abstract, lines 26-48 in column 2 and lines 33-40
in column 7). Moreover, patentee’s intention regarding this
teaching is clarified by his definition of the outer surface as
being a surface which is in contact with body tissues other than
blood (see lines 58-62 in column 3). Under these circumstances,
we cannot agree with the examiner that De Goicoechea would have
suggested depositing the coating of the primary reference devices
exclusively on surfaces that are incapable of contacting vessel
walls as required by the appealed claims.
In light of the deficiencies discussed above, the applied
prior art does not support the examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness. It follows that we cannot sustain any of the
section 103 rejections before us on this appeal.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007