Ex Parte Sogard et al - Page 6


                   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