Appeal 2007-2026
Application 10/131,772
Because forming a filter would render the Fischell ‘971 unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose, Appellants argue, “there is no suggestion or motivation to
make the proposed modification and the combination of Fischell [‘971] and
Savin does not teach or suggest instant independent claim 33” (id.).
Appellants also argue that “there would have been no need to look to
Savin in order to use the stent of Fischell [‘971] in other vessels in the
human body” because Fischell ‘971 had already disclosed that the stent was
amenable to deployment in other types of vessels (id. at 13-14).
The Examiner responds that “by combining the stent of Fischell ‘971
with the tapered delivery balloon of Savin, one could enhance the use of the
Fischell ‘971 stent by providing numerous advantages such as delivering the
stent to various areas of the body and also fulfilling several functions (i.e. a
stent or a filter)” (Answer 12). The Examiner argues that using the stent as a
filter “is just one reason for combination. The focus of the combination is
using a tapered or stepped balloon to deliver the stent to locations not
contemplated by a straight stent” (id. at 13).
We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill would have
considered it obvious to use Savin’s delivery system to deploy the Fischell
‘971 stent. Fischell ‘971 discloses a stent having two types of cells,
allowing the stent to be deployed in a main artery that connects with a
branching artery (Fischell ‘971, col. 1, ll. 29-40). One of the cells is
configured such that, once the stent is placed in the main artery, the cells can
be “expanded at the ostium of a side branch artery to a comparatively large
diameter without breaking any of the struts of the stent cell. By this
technique unobstructed blood flow of the side branch can be provided” (id.
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013