Appeal 2007-2018
Application 09/810,377
Coneys includes the virgin FEP that envelopes a loaded radiopaque section,
and obviously affects the radiopacity of the tip.” (Br. 9-10.)
We are not persuaded by this argument. First, as discussed above, the
Examiner combines Parker with Coneys by replacing the polyether block
amide in both the tip and the outer layer of the wall of the main tubular
portion with FEP (Answer 8). This combination does not necessarily require
that the FEP loaded with radiopaque material be surrounded by pure FEP.
Second, even if the high loading of FEP with radiopaque material
would make it necessary to surround this highly loaded layer with pure FEP,
we agree with the Examiner that the resulting distal tip section would consist
essentially of FEP and radiopaque material. There is nothing in the language
of claim 17 that requires that the radiopaque material be uniformly dispersed
throughout the distal tip section.
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
claims 1, 2, 17, and 20 would have been obvious over Parker in view of
Coneys, which Appellants have not rebutted. We therefore affirm the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim 13 falls
with claim 1; claim 4 falls with claim 2; claims 18, 19, 22, and 23 fall with
claim 17; and claim 21 falls with claim 20.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Parker in view of Coneys and Hopkins. The Examiner relies on Parker and
Coneys for the teachings discussed above (Answer 4). The Examiner relies
on Hopkins for disclosing the “use of radiopaque materials such as tungsten
in a catheter, where it is known that the particles can be as small as
0.9 microns” (id.). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013