Appeal 2007-0845
Application 10/268,135
traveling in one direction, but forces a guide wire traveling in the opposite
direction out of the channel.
2. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following reference as evidence of
unpatentability:
Jang US 5,554,118 Sep. 10, 1996
3. ANTICIPATION
Claims 1-6, 8-12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Jang (Answer 3). The Examiner finds that Figures 3, 5,
6, 14, 15 and 17-20 disclose all of the structural elements of claim 1 (Final
Rejection 3).
Appellants concede that “[t]he side port 34, shown in Fig. 5 of Jang,
seems to include an angled structure extending part-way into the lumen 20”
(Br. 5).1 Appellants argue, however, that
Jang includes no description of the angled structure and clearly
includes no description of a slit as separating this structure
“from an adjacent portion of the catheter wall” as claimed - i.e.,
a slit extending proximally from an edge of the channel to
create a substantially angled tip at a point at which the slit
meets the channel.
(Id.)
Appellants urge that Jang does not describe the angled structure as
being connected to the wall 30, and that “even assuming the angled structure
is part of the wall 30, the cross-sectional figures in Jang provide no
indication that it includes an angled tip and there is no description of such a
tip” (Br. 6). Appellants further urge that Figures 3 and 6 “are inconsistent
1 Appeal Brief filed July 5, 2006.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013