Appeal 2007-1998 Application 09/997,829 modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. On reflection, we find that the evidence of record is insufficient to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 103-105, 107, and 113-117 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Myer and Choi. Claim 106 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Myer, Choi and Michal. Claims 106 depends from and further limits therapeutic substance on the device of claim 103 to paclitaxel or an analog thereof. The Examiner relies on the combination of Myers and Choi as discussed above (Answer 6). The Examiner recognizes, however, that the combination of Myers and Choi fails to teach the use of paclitaxel on a stent (id.). To make up for this deficiency the Examiner relies on Michal to teach a stent coated with paclitaxel. Based on this evidence the Examiner finds that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the drug paclitaxel as taught by Michal . . . in the stent of Myers . . . as modified by Choi . . . in order to reduce restenosis” (id.). For the reasons set forth above, we find that the combination of Myers and Choi is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Michal brings the Examiner a step closer to a prima facie case of obviousness by teaching drug coated stents. The combination of Myers, Choi and Michal, however, fails to teach one of ordinary skill in the art to coat a stent with a polymer and a therapeutic substance and then place a tubular outer layer comprising PTFE tape. 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013