Appeal No. 2007-0917 Page 6
Application No. 10/012,919
process. Answer, page 6. Accordingly, the examiner relies on Tu, Akasu or
Fukasawa to teach the use of PTFE in the manufacture of a prosthesis.
For their part, appellants’ assert that Tu, Akasu, and Fukasawa add
nothing to Ishiwari. Answer, page 10. We agree, as discussed above the phrase
“for forming a prosthesis” is nothing more than a statement of the intended use of
the product made by the claimed process, and therefore does not limit the
claimed process. As further discussed above, Ishiwari teaches appellant’s
claimed process.
We recognize the declarations of Loomis and Scola. Both declarations
recognize that Ishiwari teaches the use of both PTFE and modified PTFE. See
Loomis Declaration, paragraph 6, and Scola Declaration, paragraph 5. Further,
while both declarations explain that PTFE and modified PTFE have different
properties, neither declaration suggests that extruding PTFE according to the
method taught by Ishiwari will not result in a tubular member having a wall
thickness of 250 μm or less. Instead, the declarations conclude that there is no
basis to substitute PTFE for the modified PTFE set forth in Example 1 of Ishiwari
if the only desired goal is to achieve a wall thickness of 0.12 mm. See Scola,
paragraph 7 and Loomis, paragraph 11. In our opinion, the declarations are off
point. The rejection is not based on the substitution of PTFE for modified PTFE
in the extrusion process taught by Ishiwari. Instead, the rejection is based on
Ishiwari teaching that either PTFE or modified PTFE can be used in the extrusion
process. Ishiwari exemplifies the extrusion process using modified PTFE and
obtains a tubular member with a wall thickness of 250 μm or less. There is no
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013