Appeal No. 2005-0957
Application No. 09/745,386
length of flexible material crossing over (i.e., intersecting) each adjacent length of
flexible material just radially inward from the commissure post therebetween. To
address this difference, the examiner asserts that it would have been an obvious matter
of design choice to cross over the flexible lengths of material (19) of Carpentier just
radially inward from the commissure post therebetween because the applicants have
not disclosed that this provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves
a stated problem not mentioned in the Carpentier reference. The examiner also asserts
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the invention to perform equally
well with the flexible lengths of material (sutures) not crossing over each other. See
pages 3-4 of the examiner’s answer.
Suffice to say that the examiner has not provided an evidentiary basis for the
proposed modification of the arrangement of the flexible lengths of material (sutures) of
the Carpentier valve holder necessary to arrive at the valve holder claimed by
appellants, and that the Carpentier patent provides none. Instead the examiner has
merely proffered conclusory statements that it would have been an obvious matter of
design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have expected the invention to perform equally well without the sutures
crossing over. The examiner is reminded that a rejection based on § 103 must rest on a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007