Appeal No. 2005-2690
Application No. 09/935,442
that one of ordinary skill in the art confronted with the same problems as the inventor, i.e.
prevention of restenosis upon stent implantation, and with no knowledge of the claimed
invention, would select the elements from the cited prior art references for combination in
the manner claimed, to support a prima facie case of obviousness. We do not find that
the evidence before us provides such motivation or evidences that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have expected that the incorporation of a separately released fibrinogen
and thrombin for conversion to an activated fibrin form for local delivery into an adapted
medical device which is a vascular catheter, a vascular stent or a vascular graft, would
have addressed clotting problems associated with the fibrin formation upon stent
implantation and would have addressed issues associated with restenosis upon stent
implantation. The rejection of claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, 26-28, and 47-52 over Dinh in view
of Delmotte and Sawhney is reversed.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, 26-28, and 47-52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for
obviousness over Dinh in view of Delmotte and Sawhney is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
REVERSED
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007