Appeal 2006-0959
Application 10/075,914
Appellant further points out that the Examiner at one point relies upon
Figure 14 of Wolff and its description at column 7, lines 18-22 as showing
bonding of the metallic component to the polymeric component. Appellant
argues that Figure 14 actually represents bonding of individual strands of
metal to each other and points to column 7, lines 26-27. We cannot agree
that Figure 14 is directed to bonding of strands of metal. Figures 12-15
depict various weaves for the stents of Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1 depicts a
“purely polymeric prosthesis” (Wolff, col. 9, ll. 35-37) shown in cross-
section in Figure 3A (Wolff, col. 2, ll. 48-49). Figure 14 represents bonding
of strands (filaments 12) made of polymer, not metal (Wolff, col. 9, ll. 1-11).
Moreover, even if Wolff described bonding metal filaments in Figure
14, the other portions of Wolff relied upon by the Examiner support the
Examiner’s finding of anticipation.
B. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a)
The Examiner maintains two grounds of rejection, as discussed below:
1. Rejection of claims 2 and 11 over Wolff in combination with
Mayer.
To reject claims 2 and 11, the Examiner added Mayer as further
evidence of obviousness. There being no new argument over and above
what we have already addressed, we conclude that the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of unpatentability with respect to the subject
matter of claims 2 and 11 that has not been contested by Appellant.
2. Rejection of claims 14, 16, 17, 19, 23, 24, and 26 over
Ragheb in combination with Wolff.
To reject claims 14, 16, 17, 19, 23, 24 and 26, the Examiner added
Mayer as further evidence of obviousness. There being no new argument
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007