Appeal 2007-1197
Application 10/674,729
DISCUSSION
1. Anticipation by Evans
Claims 31, 32, 40, 41, and 43-46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) for anticipation over Evans.
The Examiner contends that Evans teaches a stent, as claimed.
(Answer 3.) In particular
Evans et al teaches a self-expanding braided tubular mesh
comprising first 14 and second 16 wires helically wound at a
first and second pitch, respectively; wherein selected crossing
points [of] each of the first and second wires are shaped to form
an elevation, wherein the elevations 54 are arranged in a pattern
having a third pitch different than the first pitch and different
from the second pitch. (Answer 3.)
The Appellant contends that "Evans does not anticipate . . . because
the flat ribbon of Evans is not wire." (Br. 5.)
We do not read the disclosure of Evans as narrowly as Appellant.
Evans describes a stent made of "helically woven elements." (Col. 3, ll. 59-
67.) The helically woven elements are "typically composed of metals. (Col.
3, l. 67; col. 6, ll 49-51.) “The helically woven elements will usually be flat
ribbons." (Col. 3, ll. 59-67.) Evans further states that the helically woven
elements form the tubular body of the prosthesis. (Col. 6, ll. 3-37.)
According to Evans, the tubular body, which is comprised of the woven
elements, may be composed of one or more materials. "[I]t may be desirable
to fabricate the tubular body both from organic polymers . . . and from
metallic elements. . . Alternatively or additionally, the interwoven elements
can . . . be composed of two or more materials, particularly when the flat
ribbons are composed of multiple individual filaments." (Col. 6, ll. 49-67.)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013