Appeal 2007-2557
Application 10/094,866
(Supra 7.) It should go without saying that this is quite different from the
structure set forth in Appellant’s claim 1.
According to Appellant’s claim 1, a single strand of material makes
up each segment which comprises a repeating series of interconnected
repeating W-shaped strand configurations. Claim 1 requires that the
segments are interconnected end to end so as to generally encompass a radial
space within the segment. Interconnection bridges are used to interconnect
each segment in series. In contrast, following the majority’s rationale,
support member 19 of Ley represents the “loops” in Appellant’s claimed
configuration (supra 7). However, as clearly illustrated in Ley’s figure 3
these so called “loops” would be the same as the loops of an adjacent
segment in every other repeating pattern along the stent when viewed from
left to right. This is not what Appellant’s have claimed.
Further, this is more than a trivial difference. Ley teaches that the
stent is expanded relative to the cells. Specifically Ley discloses that
[w]hen the stent is expanded, as shown in FIG. 4, on a balloon
20 the cells 12 take on a new configuration as shown, the
members making up the stent being indicated by the same
numbers as used in FIG. 1 and FIG. 3. Again, one cell is shown
darkened for clarity.
(Ley, col. 2, ll. 53-57.) Thus, it is the cells that provide the stent with its
expandable properties, not the interconnecting bridges or support members
that simply function to lock the cells in place in substantially parallel rows
(Ley, col. 2, ll. 39-42). As the majority recognizes, the same is true of
Appellant’s claimed stent (supra 2-3, quoting page 5 of Appellant’s
Specification). Therefore, it cannot be said that the configuration of the
stent set forth in Appellant’s claim 1 is obvious in view of Ley’s stent.
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013