Appeal 2007-2413
Application 10/041,117
or suggestion in Rhodes of the first prosthesis of the claimed invention.”
(Br. 5.) We have already dealt with this argument with respect to the
previous rejection, and it is not found to be convincing for the reasons set
forth above. Thus, the rejection is affirmed.
Claims 1, 6, 20, 21, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combination of Dereume and Lunn.
Dereume is cited for teaching “a system substantially as claimed.”
(Answer 5.) As to the compressible gasket, the Examiner points to portions
(5) and (6) of sleeve (4) as seen in Figure 7, or the partitions in Figures 10,
12, and 17 (Answer 5). According to the Examiner, Dereume fails to teach
that the graft of the first prosthesis has pleats (Id. at 5-6). Lunn is cited to
remedy that deficiency. The Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to combine Dereume’s aneurysm bypassing system with stent and
graft, with Lunn’s teaching of placing longitudinal pleats on the graft of
aneurysm bypassing systems, in order to provide the prosthesis with radial
flexibility, allowing the graft to expand further.” (Id. at 6.)
Appellants argue that Dereume teaches a sleeve which has two parts
that are affixed to one another to create channels, whereas claim 1 requires a
compressible gasket positioned at the distal end of the first prosthesis (Br.
7). We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has failed to establish that
the combination of references teaches the compressible gasket as required by
claim 1, and we are thus compelled to reverse the rejection.
The Examiner, in relying on Dereume, points to portions (5) and (6)
of sleeve (4) as seen in Figure 7, or the partitions in Figures 10, 12, and 17,
as being the compressible gasket required by claim 1. Dereume teaches that
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013