Appeal No. 2006-0311 Παγε 5
Application No. 09/900,241
examiner that Anderson describes an end-to-end connection without overlap between
the stent and graft is speculative at best and therefore the examiner has not established
a prima facie case of anticipation. As such, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 25
and claim 3 dependent thereon.1
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 is reversed.
REVERSED
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
1 Upon return of this case, the examiner should consider whether a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
103 of the claims on appeal should be made over Anderson and whether there is prior art in the tubular
conduit art which more clearly defines the term "butt joint."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007