Appeal No. 2003-1502 Page 3
Application No. 09/365,860
to the Brief (Paper No. 15) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 17) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Representative Claim 1
A device for retaining a prosthesis within a body
passage comprising an annular, resilient element, wherein
said element is formed by overlapping a plurality of windings
of wire radially on top of one another around a common core
and connecting the two windings together to form a bundle,
said wire being sized to decrease the minimum bending
diameter of said element.
The Section 102 Rejection Based Upon Inoue ‘197
Claim 1 stands rejected as being anticipated1 by Inoue ‘179. In arriving at this
conclusion, the examiner has taken the position that “the multiple rings [of Inoue ‘179]
are windings of wire to the extent required” (Answer, page 4), which we assume means
the examiner considers the rings disclosed in Inoue ‘179 to constitute “windings.” The
1Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention. See, for example, RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007