Appeal 2006-0959
Application 10/075,914
reasons advanced by the Examiner and provide the following discussion
primarily for emphasis.
A. Rejection under 35 USC § 102(b)
The Examiner maintains two grounds of rejection over 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b). We discuss each separately as follows.
1. Rejection of claims 1-10, 13, 15, 18, 20-22, 25, and 27 over
Ragheb.
In rejecting claims 1-10, 13, 15, 18, 20-22, 25, and 27 over Ragheb,
the Examiner finds that Ragheb describes an intraluminal stent including a
biodegradable polymeric material covering a metallic reinforcing component
as required by the first two clauses of claim 1. With respect to the third
clause of claim 1, the Examiner interprets this clause as encompassing the
stent of Ragheb because neither “[t]he specification nor the claims provide
specific structural limitations that distinguish the claimed invention from the
prior art.” (Answer, p. 7). The Examiner provides two reasons why the
language is not particularly limiting on the structure of the stent: (1) the
sufficiency of the metallic reinforcing component in providing structural
reinforcement is dependent on many factors including the size and shape of
the lumen into which it is implanted; and (2) because the phrase
“maintaining patency” encompasses maintaining the stent open by
preventing endothelial cell growth or accumulation debris in the lumen as
well as by preventing collapse of the stent structure (Id.).
Appellant does not dispute that, as found by the Examiner, Ragheb
describes an intraluminal stent including a metallic reinforcing component
covered by a biodegradable polymeric material as required by the first two
clauses of claim 1. In fact, Appellant acknowledges that such stents were
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007