Appeal No. 2006-0526 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/206,620
instance serve to patentably distinguish over the graft of Lunn. See, e.g., In re
Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 230-31 (CCPA 1971).
In any event, Lunn depicts placement of the graft in a body vessel with the
central portion being placed or disposed adjacent or at a curved location (aneurysm 36).
As discussed above, Lunn clearly discloses providing crimping in this portion. Whether
the section(s) of omitted crimping, which responds to the "uncrimped portion" of
appellants' claims 1 and 22, disclosed by Lunn is/are in the central portion, one of the
end portions or in all three portions, a "crimped portion" (a section of the central portion
in which crimping is not omitted) is placed or disposed adjacent or at this curved
location.
In light of the above, we find no error in the examiner's determination that the
subject matter of independent claims 1 and 22 is anticipated by Lunn. The rejection of
claims 1 and 22, as well as claims 2-14, 25 and 26 which appellants have not argued
separately apart from claim 1 and claims 23 and 24 which appellants have not argued
separately apart from claim 22, as being anticipated by Lunn is sustained.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-14 and 22-26
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is AFFIRMED.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007