Appeal No. 2006-2879
Application No. 09/954,789
(d) an endovascular prosthesis comprising a stent graft capable of inhibiting but
not completely arresting blood flow into the abdominal aortic aneurysm due to the
presence of one or more endoleaks.
The prior art references cited by the examiner are:
McCrory 5,951,599 Sept 1999
Evans et al. (Evans) 5,695,480 Dec. 1997
Chuter et al. (Chuter), "Endovascular Aneurysm Repair in High-Risk Patients", J. Vasc.
Surg., Vol. 31, pp. 122-133 (2000)
May et al. (May), "Comparison of First and Second Generation Prostheses for
Endoluminal Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: A 6-year Study with Life Table
Analysis," J. Vasc. Surg., Vol. 32, pp. 124-129 (2000)
Grounds of Rejection
Claims 16, and 20-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over McCrory in
view of Chuter, May and Evans.
We reverse this rejection.
DISCUSSION
Obviousness
Claims 16, and 20-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over McCrory in
view of Chuter, May and Evans.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007