Appeal 2007-1585
Application 10/383,268
order of the stents used by Appellant (see page 18, lines 7-17),
the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention would have
been considered at least clearly obvious in view of Fogarty
alone.
(Answer 3-4.)
Appellants contend that the Examiner has not made out a prima facie
case of obviousness. (Br. 8). The Appellants argue, “Examining Fogarty
Fig. 4, the left-hand (distal) side of element (92), which would be the third
stent-graft, is clearly not smaller than the right-hand (proximal) side of
element (92), as required by claim 34.” (Br. 8).
The Examiner responds, arguing that Fogarty states that, “the length,
cross-section, axial bend angle, axial flexibility, resilient spring force …and
the like” can be varied to offer a variety of prosthetic characteristics.
(Answer 3-4). Fogarty, col. 10, ll. 52-56. Fogarty’s Fig. 4 (as modified by
the Examiner) is reproduced below:
Fig. 4 depicts three rows of possible stent connections including
various stent shapes and sizes. The Examiner asserts that it would have been
“obvious to utilize a combination of module 92 connected to the 1st module
94, which is then serially connected to the 6th module to form a graft”…
(Answer 7).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013