Appeal 2007-2018
Application 09/810,377
“to modify the tungsten in Parker to be of a size at least as small as
0.9 microns and larger as such are known particle sizes of tungsten used in
radiopaque catheters as suggested by Hopkins as such would be more easily
visible” (id.).
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness. Parker and Coneys are discussed above. For the reasons
discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated to replace the polyether block amide in both
the shaft and distal tip section of Parker’s device with the polyfluorinated
ethylenepropylene described in Coneys, and to include between about 50%
and 55% by weight tungsten particles in the distal tip.
Hopkins describes a catheter comprising a plastic material containing
tungsten particles that are no greater than 2 microns in size (Hopkins,
Abstract). Hopkins states that “tungsten is preferred for its low cost, high
radiopaqueness and its availability in particles as small as 0.9 microns” (id.
at col. 2, ll. 28-31). Based on the teachings in Hopkins, we also agree that it
would have been obvious to include tungsten particles that range in size
from 0.9 to 2.0 microns in the distal tip. “[W]here there is a range disclosed
in the prior art, and the claimed invention falls within that range, there is a
presumption of obviousness.” Iron Grip Barbell, 392 F.3d at 1322, 73
USPQ2d at 1228.
Appellants argue that “the combination of Parker and Coneys neither
teaches nor suggests the use of highly loaded FEP as a distal tip material.
Furthermore, the cited combination neither teaches nor suggests a distal tip
section containing between about 50% and 55% by weight of tungsten
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013