Ex Parte Sogard et al - Page 5


                   Appeal No.  2007-0917                                                                Page 5                    
                   Application No.  10/012,919                                                                                    
                   member5 having a wall thickness      6 of 120 μm.  Id.  Accordingly, we understand                             
                   Ishiwari to teach an extrusion method which uses either PTFE or modified PTFE                                  
                   together with a lubricant and an extruder having a specified nozzle diameter                                   
                   ratio.  In our opinion, that Ishiwari exemplifies the use of modified PTFE rather                              
                   than PTFE does not detract from Ishiwari’s teaching that either could be used, as                              
                   recognized by appellants.  Brief, page 9.                                                                      
                          We find no evidence on this record that demonstrates that extruding PTFE                                
                   according to the methodology set forth in Ishiwari (including the required nozzle                              
                   diameter ratio) will not result in a tubular member having a wall thickness of less                            
                   than 250 microns.  Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 23 under                                      
                   35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ishiwari.  Claims 25, 26, 36 and 38-40 fall                               
                   together with claim 23.                                                                                        


                   The combination of Ishiwari and any one of Tu, Akasu or Fukasawa:                                              
                          Claims 23, 25, 26, 36, and 38-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                                
                   being unpatentable over the combination of Ishiwari and any one of Tu, Akasu or                                
                   Fukasawa.  As we understand this rejection, the examiner relies on Ishiwari as                                 
                   set forth above, but notes that Ishiwari does not teach “the use of the material for                           
                   a ‘prosthesis’,” the intended use of the product produced by appellants’ claimed                               

                                                                                                                                  
                   5 Specifically, Ishiwari teaches that the extruded product is “an unsintered PTFE hollow yarn                  
                   having a wall thickness of 0.12 mm.”  Ishiwari, page 4.  According to Ishiwari, a “hollow yarn                 
                   means a yarn having a bore along the axis of the yarn. . . .”  Appellants do not dispute that                  
                   Ishiwari’s hollow yarn is a tubular member.  Accordingly, we find that appellants have conceded                
                   that Ishiwari’s hollow yarn is a tubular member within the scope of their claimed invention.                   
                   6 Appellants do not dispute that Ishiwari’s wall thickness is defined between the inner and outer              
                   surfaces.  Accordingly, we find that appellants have conceded that Ishiwari’s wall thickness is                
                   defined between the inner and outer surfaces.                                                                  




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

Last modified: September 9, 2013