Appeal No. 2006-1652
Application No. 10/011,583
blood clot particles from a blood clot that has been displaced
into the end receptacle” (col. 2, lines 52-57).
The examiner’s rationale for combining Chu and Guenther is
that “[i]t would have been obvious to one having skill in the
art at the time of the invention to modify the braid structure
of Chu to include an outer covering as taught by Guenther since
the covering will prevent damage to the wall of the blood vessel
as well as prevent leaking of blood clot particles that have
been caught by the braid member” (final rejection, page 3).
The appellant argues (brief, pages 15-16):
Chu is specifically configured to permit the passage
of fluid through its foraminous anchor. This is
directly contrary to a stated purpose of the covering
of Guenther, namely to prevent leaking of blood clot
particles. By adding the coating of Guenther to the
foraminous structure of Chu, the passage of fluids
through the foraminous anchor would be severely
restricted. This would be contrary to Chu’s intended
purpose of enabling fluid to be drained from a
patient’s body through the anchor.
The examiner does not respond to the appellant’s argument
but, rather, in the arguments section of the examiner’s answer
(pages 4-6), copies the explanation of the rejections from the
final rejection (mailed October 20, 2004, pages 3-4).
The appellant has set forth a sound argument as to why one
of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the
teachings of Chu and Guenther in the manner proposed by the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007