Appeal 2007-1998
Application 09/997,829
least one linear connector” and a stent design that “allows the length to
remain substantially constant in the deployed state” (id.). Based on this
evidence the Examiner concludes that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to use the stent design as taught by Wijay in the stent of Myers
et al. as modified by Choi et al. in order to provide the
maximum support to the vessel and reduce twisting and
unwanted turbulence of blood flow
(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. As
discussed above with Michal, Wijay brings the Examiner a step closer to a
prima facie case of obviousness by teaching stents layered with polymeric
sheaths that are impregnated with biocompatible substances (Wijay, col. 2,
ll. 57-59). In addition, Wijay explains that “[m]ost sheath-type coatings
reduce endothelial cell growth through the stent, which is a major
requirement in successful stenting of body cavities such as arteries and
veins” (Wijay, col. 2, ll. 59-62). The combination of Myers, Choi and
Wijay, however, fails to teach one of ordinary skill in the art to place a
coating comprising a polymer and a therapeutic substance beneath a tubular
outer layer comprising PTFE tape.
To the contrary, Wijay teaches that it is the polymeric sheath that is
impregnated with biocompatible substance and layered onto the stent.
Neither the Examiner nor Wijay provide a reason why a person of ordinary
skill in the art would add an additional layer, e.g., a tubular outer layer
comprising expanded, sintered PTFE tape, on top of the therapeutic coating.
Prima facie obviousness requires a teaching that all elements of the claimed
invention are found in the prior art and a reason that would have prompted a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013