Appeal No. 2006-0311 Παγε 3
Application No. 09/900,241
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.
The examiner has rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Anderson. We initially note that to support a rejection of a claim under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is found, either
expressly described or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference. See
Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
The examiner’s findings regarding the Anderson reference can be found on
pages 3 and 4 of the answer.
The appellant argues that Anderson does not disclose:
... said first axial end of the graft means being fixedly connected with . . .
stent means for achieving an end-to-end connection without overlap. . .
whereby the end-to-end connection without overlap enables a smaller
cross-section than a connection with overlap so that the endovascular
stent/graft assembly can be introduced more easily into the blood vessel
as required by claim 25.
The examiner relies on column 11, lines 10 to 14 of Anderson which states:
Alternatively, the stent might be sewn onto the graft at selected points. At
least a portion of stents 56,58 extend out of graft 52, and if the stents and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007