Appeal 2007-0845
Application 10/268,135
explicit disclosure, discussed supra, that the side port containing the angled
portion of the lumen wall is configured to discourage passage of a guide
wire into the guide wire lumen in a proximal direction.
Because Jang describes a catheter meeting all of the limitations in
claim 1, we affirm the anticipation rejection of claim 1.
Appellants base their arguments regarding the patentability of claims
2-6 and 8-10 on the limitations of claim 1 (Br. 7). Claims 2-6 and 8-10
therefore fall with claim 1.
Appellants argue that claim 11
recites limitations substantially similar to those of claim 1,
including “a guide wire ramp formed of a portion of a wall of
the catheter separated from an adjacent portion of the catheter
wall by 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, wherein the angled tip extends into the
channel portion.”
(Br. 7.)
Appellants urge that, therefore, “claim 11 is allowable for at least the
reasons stated above with reference to claim 1” (id.). Appellants further
urge that “[b]ecause claim 12 depends from, and, therefore includes all of
the limitations of claim 11, . . . this claim is also allowable” (id.).
Similar to their arguments regarding claim 11, Appellants urge that
claim 20 recites a guide wire ramp substantially similar to that recited in
claim 1, and that therefore “claim 20 is allowable for at least the reasons
stated above with reference to claim 1” (Br. 7-8).
We are not persuaded by these arguments. As discussed supra, we
agree with the Examiner that Jang describes a catheter having a guide wire
ramp meeting the limitations of claim 1. Jang therefore also describes a
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013