Appeal 2007-1585
Application 10/383,268
If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product ... of ordinary
skill and common sense.” Id. at 1742.
In the present case, we find that the array of stent combinations
depicted in Fig. 4, would have been available as a predictable technical
solution to the problem of pairing the appropriate stent to the configuration
size and shape of the blood vessel to be treated. Thus, one of ordinary skill
in the art would have considered it obvious to use these available stent
configurations for their established functions. Therefore, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We affirm the rejection as to claims
25-28 and 34.
Claims 30-33 and 35
Appellants group claims 30-33 and 35 together, and separately argue
independent claim 35. (Br. 11). We select claim 35 as representative of this
claim grouping.
Appellants contend that Fogarty fails to teach or suggest each
limitation of the claimed invention. (Br. 11). Appellants argue “[n]one of
the embodiments of Fogarty…teaches an intermediate stent-graft engaging
the larger end of the small stent graft.” (Id). Citing Fogarty at column 10,
lines 1-15, Appellants further argue that “Fogarty teaches against providing
an interface area (between the body module and either sealing module) that
is larger than the sealing ends of the composite prosthesis” (Br. 12).
Appellants conclude that, “Fogarty specifically teaches the desirability of
limiting the interface ends to a smaller diameter than the sealing ends.” (Br.
12-13).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013