Appeal 2007-2026
Application 10/131,772
4. OBVIOUSNESS -- CLAIMS 33-36
Claims 33-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over Fischell ‘971 and Savin (Answer 6-7).
The Examiner asserts that “Fischell discloses [a] stent with a plurality
of I-shaped bonate cell structure[s] and multibonate cell structures wherein
the cell structures are interlocking,” but that “Fischell does not disclose that
the structures are oriented at an oblique angle” (id. at 6). Citing Savin to
meet this deficiency, the Examiner again reasons that “[b]y using a tapered
balloon to deliver the stent of Fischell, the cell structures will be disposed at
an oblique angle relative to the longitudinal axis. The cell structures will
converge longitudinally toward the distal (or proximal) end of the stent, as
well as converge radially inward toward the longitudinal axis” (id. at 6-7).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use Savin’s
tapered balloon to deploy the Fischell ‘971 stent because Savin discloses that
its delivery system is advantageous “because it can be used in various areas
of the body and can also fulfill several functions (i.e. a stent or a filter)” (id.
at 7).
Appellants argue that expanding only one end of the Fischell ‘971
stent to form a filter “would render the stent of Fischell [‘971] unsatisfactory
for its intended purpose, namely, to provide support to a main branch vessel
on either side of a bifurcation and to provide an opening to the side branch
vessel of the bifurcation” (Br. 13). Appellants argue that if only one end of
the Fischell ‘971 stent were expanded, the stent would not provide support to
the wall of the main branch vessel, because the special expandable cells
require positioning adjacent to the side branch ostium of a bifurcation (id.).
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013