Appeal 2007-2331
Application 10/123,883
stent can be positioned over the balloon, in which case only one end of the
stent is expanded, allowing the stent to act as a filter (id.).
The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention to use a tapered balloon to
deliver the stent of Alt, thereby providing a stent that has first
and second segments with different diameters in the expanded
state and the same diameters in the compressed state. Savin
states that the motivation for using a tapered balloon to deliver
a stent provides numerous advantages because it can be used in
various areas of the body and can also fulfill several functions
(i.e. a stent or a filter). Furthermore, Alt states that it is well
know[n] that the same type of stent could be delivered with
many different types of balloons depending on the patient, the
vessel diameter and the condition being treated (Col. 16, lines
24-30).
(Answer 4).
“In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the
initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Only if that
burden is met, does the burden of coming forward with evidence or
argument shift to the applicant.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532,
28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). In order to
determine whether a prima facie case of obviousness has been established,
we considered the factors set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
1, 17 (1996); (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences
between the prior art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in
the relevant art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, if present.
We find that the Examiner has met his burden of setting forth a prima facie
case of obviousness, and the rejection is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013