Appeal 2007-2496
Application 10/096,299
the ventricles of a diseased human heart (col. 3, ll. 3-5). We therefore affirm
the rejection as to claims 61 and 62.
As to claim 70, Appellants argue that Deskalakis does not disclose
“visually confirming an appropriate degree of expansion of the expandable
member effected by said expandable member.” (Appeal Br. 7.) Deskalakis
teaches, however, as noted by the Examiner, evaluating the dead volume
through the use of a echo cardiogram (Deskalakis, col. 7, ll. 35-37; Answer
5). We find therefore that Deskalakis teaches all of the limitations of claim
70, and the rejection is also affirmed as to that claim.
Claim 71 stands on a different footing, however. Claim 71 is drawn
to the method of claim 61, further comprising preventing contraction or
further expansion of the expandable member after said inflating the
expandable member to said shape. As noted by Appellants, the inflatable
implant of Deskalakis is inflated during each ventricular contraction
(Deskalakis, col. 7, ll. 3-8; Appeal Br. 8). Thus, we agree with Appellants
that the implant must be deflated between successive inflation steps.
Deskalakis, therefore, does not teach preventing contraction or further
expansion of the expandable member after said inflating the expandable
member to said shape, and the rejection is reversed as to claim 71.
CONCLUSION
We find that the Examiner has established a prima facie case that 61,
62, and 70 are anticipated by Deskalakis, and the rejection is affirmed as to
those claims. We find, however, that the Examiner has not set out a prima
facie case of anticipation of claim 71, and the rejection is reversed as to that
claim.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013