Ex Parte Paul et al - Page 10


                 Appeal No.  2006-2037                                                         Page 10                  
                 Application No.  10/414,938                                                                            
                 lines 3-5.  In addition, “[a] diffusion barrier layer 28 is disposed on surface 22 of                  
                 stent 20 covering cavities 24.”  Pacetti, column 18, lines 5-7.  The “[d]iffusion                      
                 barrier layer 28 contains particles 30 for reducing the rate of release of active                      
                 ingredient 26.”                                                                                        
                        In response appellants assert that “Pacetti does not teach or suggest the                       
                 very specific and sequential arrangement of agents as specified in claim 1.”                           
                 Brief, page 7.  We agree.  As discussed above, appellants’ device comprises                            
                 three parts, which define separate sections located at different ends of the                           
                 device.6  Contrary to the examiner’s assertion7 (Answer, page 4), we find not                          
                 teaching in Pacetti that describes a device with the arrangement of parts set forth                    
                 in appellants’ claimed invention.  While we agree with the examiner in that the                        
                 devices described by appellants and Pacetti can be tubes, we find no evidence in                       
                 Pacetti and the examiner failed to identify any specific teaching in Pacetti that                      
                 describes a device that is the same as those required by appellants’ claimed                           
                 invention.                                                                                             
                        “Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, every limitation of a claim must identically appear                     
                 in a single prior art reference for it to anticipate the claim.”  Gechter v. Davidson,                 
                 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  As discussed                              
                 above, Ragheb does not describe appellants’ invention.  Accordingly, we reverse                        

                                                                                                                        
                 6 We disagree with the examiner that “there is nothing in applicant’s claim 1 that teaches or          
                 suggests a very specific and sequential arrangement of agents.”  Answer, page 3.  The examiner         
                 has not explained how the claim can be constructed to avoid the defined spatial relationship of        
                 different sections at different ends of the device as set forth in appellants’ claimed invention.      
                 Accordingly, we are not persuaded by the examiner’s assertion.                                         
                 7 According to the examiner (Answer, page 4), appellants’ device and Pacetti’s device appear to        
                 be identical in structure.                                                                             




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013