Ex Parte Westlund et al - Page 6

                Appeal  2007-0811                                                                              
                Application 10/128,997                                                                         

                      Stevens discloses a catheter for use in supplying and withdrawing                        
                fluids from the heart.  Turning to Figures 4A and 4B, we note that the                         
                catheter has a soft tip 614 at the distal end 606 of the shaft.  The soft tip is to            
                minimize trauma to tissue when the catheter is being introduced.  See col.                     
                11, ll. 20-32.  The soft tip 614 is provided with radiopaque material to allow                 
                visualization by fluoroscopy as the catheter is introduced into the heart.  See                
                col. 11, ll. 58-60.                                                                            
                      Ayers discloses another lead for implantation in the human heart                         
                wherein the electrode 44 forms the entire part of the preformed biased                         
                portion.  From the electrode to the tip is a taper as seen in Figure 2.                        
                      Carson discloses another lead implanted into the heart using a guide                     
                catheter through which the lead is introduced while the lead is stiffened with                 
                the use of an internal stylet.  See col. 4, ll. 35-56.                                         

                                           PRINCIPAL OF LAW                                                    
                      “Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences                          
                between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such                    
                that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the                     
                invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said                  
                subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,                     
                1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007).  The question of obviousness is                             
                resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the                   
                scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed                    
                subject matter and the prior art, and (3) the level of skill in the art.  Graham               
                v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).  See also                      


                                                      6                                                        

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013