Appeal 2007-2331
Application 10/123,883
occurrence in balloon angioplasty procedures, (C) maintain the
diameter of the stented vessel segment slightly larger than the
native unobstructed vessel segments proximal and distal the
stented segment and (d) as indicated by the latest clinical data,
lower the restenosis rate. Following an angioplasty procedure,
the restenosis rate of stented vessels has proven significantly
lower than for unstented or otherwise treated vessels; treatments
include drug therapy and other methods mentioned previously.
(Id. at 1-2.)
The Specification also discloses a tapered stent, wherein the stent may
be tapered by removal of expansion struts, or by changing “the stiffness of
the stent struts, expansion struts, connecting struts or joining struts such that
the stiffness of the struts varies along the length of the stent.” (Id. at 12.) A
tapered balloon catheter is used to deliver and deploy the tapered stent (id.).
“Using a tapered balloon to expand a non-tapered stent will also achieve a
tapered expanded stent; however, since no metal is removed from the stent,
the stent is tapered as a result of incomplete expansion.” (Id. at 13.) Such a
stent, according to the Specification, has an increased metal fraction at the
tapered end, and thus an increased risk of acute thrombosis (id.).
DISCUSSION
Claims 24-31 and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Alt and Savin.1 As Appellant does not
argue the claims separately, we focus our analysis on independent claim 24.
1 In the Final Rejection at page 2, mailed May 2, 2006, the Examiner set1
forth the statutory basis for 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and then in the statement of
the rejection, cited 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Appellant recognized that the
statement that the claims were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) was a
typographical error, and that the Examiner in fact intended to reject the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013