Appeal No. 2005-0943
Application No. 09/947,943
definition advanced by the examiner is not. Interpreted in this
light, the subject matter recited in claim 1 is limited to a
catheter having but one balloon, and hence is not met by
Sarosiek’s disclosure of a catheter having two balloons.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claims
2 through 9, as being anticipated by Sarosiek.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 9 is
reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007