Appeal No. 2003-1725
Application No. 09/357,645 Page 23
member from the occluding configuration to the open configuration
when the occluding member is in the occluding configuration.”
The examiner asserts that Payne “clearly discloses this” (answer,
page 8) without specifying where in Payne that disclosure is
found. Appellants argue that Payne’s occluding member is not
resistant (or most resistant) to forces applied from the tube
when in the occluding configuration since the spring plates 28
and 29 (occluding members) of Payne push against the inflated
bladder toward an open configuration. See page 21 of the
substitute brief, which is incorporated by reference into the
supplemental brief at page 20 thereof. In response to that
argument, the examiner asserts that Payne “does not disclose a
check valve” (answer, page 12). Like appellants (reply brief,
page 20), we do not find the examiner’s position persuasive. In
this regard, the examiner has the burden of establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness. Here, the examiner falls
significantly short of so doing since the examiner has not fairly
explained, nor is it readily apparent to us, why the spring
plates (occluding members) of Payne are of a construction that is
most resistant to forces from the tube when the spring plates are
in the occluding configuration of figure 2 rather than some other
configuration, such as any other position from the already open
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007