Appeal 2007-1998
Application 09/997,829
person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to modify the prior art to arrive
at the claimed invention. See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Accordingly, Wijay fails to make up for the deficiency in the combination of
Myers and Choi.
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 claim 108-111 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Myers, Choi, and Wijay.
4. Claims 108-110 and 112 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Myer, Choi and Becker. Claims 108-
110 and 112 depend directly or indirectly on claim 103.
The Examiner relies on the combination of Myers and Choi as set
forth above (Answer 6). The Examiner finds that the combination of Myers
and Choi fail to teach a non-foreshortening stent (Answer 7). The Examiner
relies on Becker to teach 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 Becker in the stent of Myers
et al. as modified by Choi et al. in order to provide the
maximum support to the vessel and increasing the effective
range of the stent
(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.
Becker fails to teach or provide a reason to incorporate a coating comprising
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013