Appeal 2007-2026
Application 10/131,772
We also note that Savin discloses that a stent that decreases in length
upon expansion “enhances its release from [the delivery] system” (Savin col.
5, ll. 48-49). However, Savin qualifies this preference in the next sentence,
stating that “[a]ny kind of stent may be delivered by this system, including
plastically deformable or elastically deformable stents” (id. at col. 5, ll. 49-
51, emphasis added). Therefore, because Savin’s disclosure is not limited to
stents that shorten upon deployment, we do not agree that Savin teaches
away from delivering the stents disclosed in Fischell ‘516 with the tapered
balloon delivery system.
Appellants argue that the stent of Fischell ‘516 has hour-glass shaped
cells, rather than the I-shaped cells required by claim 37 (Reply Br. 4).
We do not find this argument persuasive of nonobviousness. As
discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that, when given its broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, the term “I shaped”
encompasses any structure that is generally shaped like an “I.” We note that
the cells of the stent of Fischell ‘516 could be characterized as hour glass-
shaped. However, because the cells have two wider end portions which
extend from both sides of a narrower connecting portion that extends along a
central axis (see Fischell ‘516, Figure 1), we agree with the Examiner that
the cells are also generally shaped like an “I.” We therefore also agree that
claim 37 encompasses the cells of the Fischell ‘516 stent.
To summarize, Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us that the
Examiner erred by concluding that claims 37-41 are obvious over the cited
references. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
claims 37-41.
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013