Appeal 2007-2557
Application 10/094,866
With respect to the second disputed limitation, i.e., “a plurality of
narrowings . . . in the interconnection bridge,” Appellant disputes the
Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings of Hojeibane and Dinh. (Reply
Br. 10-12.) Both Hojeibane and Dinh identify the problem of increasing
stent flexibility and how to address it. Hojeibane expressly discloses making
connectors narrower at their midpoints to increase flexibility and suggests
“alternate designs of the connector to insure flexibility are possible, and
contemplated.” (FFs 11, 12 (citing col. 6, ll. 30-44).) Alternatively Dinh
discloses the value of flexibility in a stent and suggests changing the width
of the connector to vary it. (FF 13 (citing col. 5, ll. 63-66).) With this
teaching in mind, Dinh’s stent designs, disclosed in FIGs. 4A, 4B and 6D, at
least suggest narrowing part of the connecting segment in more than one
place. (FF 14.)
Thus, the skilled artisan desiring more flexibility in a stent, and aware
of Hojeibane or Dinh, would have had reason to include “a plurality of
narrowings” in Ley’s connector to solve the problem of increasing the
stent’s flexibility. Additionally, that artisan would have had a reasonable
expectation that adding such narrowings would in fact solve the problem.
(FF 15.)
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, and 13 stand provisionally rejected under the
judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims
1-3 of Das ‘318. Appellant does not dispute this ground of rejection. Thus,
we summarily affirm it.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013