Appeal 2007-2413
Application 10/041,117
“[t]he sleeve 4 has, in its central part, diametrically opposite parts 5 and 6
which are joined to each other, for example, by stitching, sealing, heat-
sealing, etc.” (Dereume col. 5, ll. 32-34.) In discussing the production of the
intraluminal prosthesis, Dereume teaches that a cylindrical sleeve is formed,
which undergoes a leaktight joining, such as by seams, heat sealing, or cold
sealing, to form two axial channels over at least part of the length of sleeve
(col. 8, ll. 9-29). The sleeve may then be attached to the inner surface of the
tubular stent (col. 8, ll. 30-32).
It thus appears that portions (5) and (6) of sleeve (4) as seen in Figure
7, or the partitions in Figures 10, 12, and 17, is merely the leaktight joining
discussed above, and the Examiner has not provided any rationale or
evidence demonstrating why that would read on the compressible gasket
required by claim 1. Thus, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness, and we are compelled to reverse the rejection. KSR
Int’l Co., v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396
(2007) (noting that, in order to facilitate review of the obviousness
determination, the “analysis should be made explicit”).
CONCLUSION
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 6, 21, and 24 under
35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Rhodes, and the rejection of claim
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being rendered obvious by Rhodes. But, as
the Examiner failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness based on
the combination of Dereume and Lunn, we are compelled to reverse the §
103(a) rejection of claims 1, 6, 20, 21, and 24.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013