Appeal 2007-2557
Application 10/094,866
1956. Simply stated, “[w]hen the references cited by the [E]xaminer fail to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the rejection is improper and
will be overturned.” In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596,
1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Obviousness:
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Ley and Hojeibane; or Ley and
Dinh. In addition, claims 3, 6, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ley, Hojeibane, and
Ndondo-Lay; or Ley, Dinh, and Ndondo-Lay.
The majority limits their analysis to independent claim 16.
Therefore, I begin my analysis there.
Claim 1:
Claim 1 is drawn to an expandable stent. The stent comprises a
plurality of segments that are “expandably interconnected” to each other in
series by a plurality of interconnection bridges. Thus, the claimed stent
comprises (1) segments and (2) interconnection bridges.
6 Supra n. 2.
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013