Ex Parte Jang - Page 6

                Appeal 2007-2331                                                                                 
                Application 10/123,883                                                                           
                       Appellant argues that the stent taught by the combination of Alt and                      
                Savin does not have an expanded state (Br. 6).  Savin, according to                              
                Appellant, teaches expanding only part of the device using the balloon, and                      
                that “[t]o assert that a device which is partially unexpanded is in an                           
                expanded state is to give the term ‘expanded state’ a meaning repugnant to                       
                the definition of the term supported by the instant application.”  (Br. 6.)                      
                Appellant argues that “Savin’s partial inflation method does not disclose a                      
                stent in its expanded state but rather a filter.”  (Id. at 7.)  Appellant argues                 
                further that a stent as disclosed in the present application at page 2, lines 4-8,               
                “is a device used to scaffold a vessel wall and to remove obstructions from                      
                within the vessel.”  (Id.).  A filter as disclosed by Savin, according to                        
                Appellant, is partially inflated to provide a mechanism for filtering a body                     
                cavity (id.).  Appellant asserts that “[s]uch an arrangement does not scaffold                   
                and support the vessel in the manner of a stent.”  (Id. (emphasis in original).)                 
                       As noted by the Examiner, Savin does not just teach filters, but also                     
                teaches methods of using tapered and stepped balloons to deliver stents to                       
                coronary arteries, peripheral arteries and visceral arteries, veins, and to the                  
                biliary tree, the urinary tract, and the gastro-intestinal tract (Savin, col. 6, ll.             
                30-34) (Answer 5).  Thus, Savin teaches using a tapered or stepped balloon                       
                to deliver a stent, and not just a filter as alleged by Appellant.                               
                       Moreover, claim 24 reads on a stent that has been partially expanded,                     
                as well as fully expanded, by the tapered balloon.  There is nothing in claim                    
                24 that requires the entire stent to be in a fully expanded state.  Our mandate                  
                is to give claims their broadest reasonable construction.  In re American                        
                Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827,                             
                1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004).  “An essential purpose of patent examination is to                        

                                                       6                                                         

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013