Appeal 2007-1585
Application 10/383,268
However, regarding mating ends of the prosthetic modules, Fogarty
indicates that “[i]deally, the interface ends are interchangeable, but they may
alternatively comprise distinct inner and outer mating pairs. In a
particularly preferred embodiment, multiple prosthetic body modules 94
may be directly coupled together to form a single composite prosthesis.”
(Fogarty, col. 10, ll. 48-51). Fogarty also 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. (Fogarty,
col. 10, ll. 52-56). Fogarty further states that “[m]odular sections of the
prostheses, or ‘prosthetic modules,’ may be selectively combined to form a
composite prosthesis having characteristics which are tailored to the specific
requirements of the patient.” (Fogarty, col. 3, ll. 9-16). Thus, as indicated
above, one of ordinary skill in the art reading Fig. 4 in conjunction with the
disclosure, would have understood that Fogarty was not limited to the
dashed line connections of Figure 4, but contemplated an entire prosthesis
composed of modules 94, or comprising various module shapes selected
based on the characteristics of the blood vessel to be treated. The rejection
of claim 35 is affirmed. Claims 30-33 fall with claim 35.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we:
Affirm the rejection of claims 25-28 and 30-35 over Fogarty.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013