Appeal 2007-2557
Application 10/094,866
With emphasis added to indicate the two disputed limitations,2
representative claim 1 reads:
1. An expandable stent, the stent being expandable by
enlarging an expandable balloon positioned within the stent
when the stent is within a patient, the expandable stent
comprising:
a plurality of segments, each of the segments being
configured to be expandably interconnected and being
interconnected to each other in series by a plurality of
interconnection bridges; each segment including a
continuous strand of a material, the continuous strand of
material being interconnected end to end so as to generally
encompass a radial space within the segment; the strand of
material being configured to include a repeating series of
interconnected repeating W-shaped strand configurations
having a repeating dip, rise, dip, rise, loop, dip, rise, dip,
rise, loop patterned configuration; at least one of the
plurality of interconnection bridges including a plurality of
narrowings at certain points in the interconnection bridge
that permit the interconnection bridge to have greater
flexibility when bending proximate the plurality of
narrowings.
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellant contends: (1) The Examiner “has not identified structure
which corresponds to Appellant’s claimed ‘dip, rise, dip, rise, loop, dip, rise,
dip, rise, loop’ configuration” (Reply Br. 5; see also Br. 5); and (2) Neither
2 These two limitations are the only limitations argued by Appellant with
respect to all the pending claims. Appellant does not dispute the additional
limitation in claims 3, 6, and 10 for which Ndondo-Lay was cited in the
second ground of rejection. Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) ("Any arguments or authorities not included in the brief or
a reply brief ... will be refused consideration by the Board, unless good cause
is shown."). Thus, we address these two limitations with respect to claim 1.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013