Appeal 2006-0959
Application 10/075,914
known in the prior art (Brief, p. 6). What Appellant argues is that “[t]he
concept of the invention, in which a polymeric coating is used to provide
structural support to a metallic stent that would otherwise not have sufficient
strength to maintain patency of a lumen upon implantation of the stent into
the lumen, however, is not in the prior art and is not disclosed in Ragheb.”
(Id.). According to Appellant, Ragheb uses the biodegradable polymer
coating to deliver therapeutic agents, not to provide structural support (Id.).
The problem is that claim 1 does not require that the polymeric
coating provide structural support nor does it distinguish the structure of the
claimed stent from that of Ragheb. Claim 1 simply states that “the metallic
reinforcing component [provides] structural reinforcement for the stent but
[is] insufficient, in the absence of the biodegradable polymeric material, to
provide a stent capable of maintaining patency of a lumen upon implantation
of the stent into the lumen.” The first portion of the clause requires that the
metallic reinforcing component provide structural reinforcement. There is
no question that the metallic component of Ragheb provides such
reinforcement. The second portion of the clause requires that the metallic
reinforcing component be “insufficient to provide a stent capable of
maintaining patency.” The word(s) “strength” or “insufficient strength”
is(are) not used here. Nor does “maintaining patency” equate to maintaining
patency through structural reinforcement. As used in the biological
sciences, “patency” simply means the state or quality of being open,
expanded, or unblocked. See “patency” at dictionary.com citing, among
others, The American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary. As found by
the Examiner, patency can be maintained by preventing endothelial cell
growth or accumulation of debris in the lumen as well as by using structural
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007