Appeal 2007-2018
Application 09/810,377
Coneys describes a FEP layer containing 70-80% radiopaque material
(Coneys, col. 3, ll. 50-55). In addition, the range recited in claim 1 overlaps
with the range of 12-25% by weight recited in Coneys. Thus, we agree with
the Examiner that Coneys discloses that FEP is capable of being highly
loaded with radiopaque material.
Furthermore, Parker discloses a distal tip section containing 35-65%
by weight tungsten (Parker, col. 2, ll. 35-39). Based on this teaching and the
teaching in Coneys that FEP can be highly loaded with a radiopaque
material, such as tungsten, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to include FEP and 35-65% by
weight tungsten in the distal tip section.
Appellants also argue that “[t]here is no teaching that a discrete FEP
radiopaque distal tip section may simply be extruded and bonded onto a
proximal section. Rather, the cumbersome steps of enveloping the highly
loaded FEP in a layer of pure, virgin FEP were undertaken.” (Br. 8).
We are not persuaded by this argument. First, Coneys states that the
“blended mixture is extruded simultaneously with the pure composition”
(Coneys, col. 3, ll. 56-58). More importantly, claim 1 does not require that
the sheath be prepared by a particular method.
In addition, Appellants argue:
When a primary purpose of the highly loaded FEP layer is to
permit precise readings by radiography, the use of the outer
layer of virgin FEP runs counter to such purpose (since it is not
radiopaque), and detracts from the intended purpose of using a
highly loaded layer in the first place. At the very least, it would
dilute the strength of a radiographic signal when compared to a
signal obtainable with the inventive sheath. Furthermore, there
is no reason to believe that the Coneys structure (highly loaded
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013