Appeal 2007-1197
Application 10/674,729
wherein at selected crossing points, each of the first wire
and the second wire is shaped to form an elevation 24 extended
away from the braided tubular wall in a selected direction
radially of the braided tubular wall; and
wherein said elevations are arranged in at least one
elevation pattern on the braided tubular wall, and the at least
one elevation pattern has a third pitch different from the first
pitch and different from the second pitch.
(Answer 3.)
Again, the relevance of Chuter is dependent on the interpretation of
claim 31. The Examiner finds that the Appellant's Specification does not
define the term "substantially" with respect to the first and second pitch of
the wire in claim 31. (Answer 5.)
The Examiner contends
Appellant has not claimed that the pitch is "constant" but
only has to be "substantially constant". Further, with reference
to the claims, it is not stated that the windings are of a
substantially constant pitch [ ] over the entire . . . length of the
stent. With that is [sic] mind, one can reasonably state that with
reference to the device of Churter [sic], the wires in a
longitudinally oriented section 26 are of a substantially constant
pitch in that section.
Finally, referring to figure 1 of Chuter, looking at the
entire length, the stent is comprised of sections 26 and 24.
Windings 10 in sections 26 have a substantially constant pitch;
sections 26 further make up a larger percentage or a
"substantial" portion of the stent's length and, therefore, the
winding[s] are "substantially constant" over the entire length of
the stent.
(Answer 5.)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013