Ex Parte Das - Page 25

                Appeal 2007-2557                                                                             
                Application 10/094,866                                                                       
                citation omitted.  Having failed to address the specific limitations of this                 
                claim, it cannot be said that the Examiner met his burden of establishing that               
                claim 4 is prima facie case obviousness over the combination of Ley and                      
                Hojeibane or Ley and Dinh.  If the Examiner fails to establish a prima facie                 
                case, the rejection is improper and will be overturned.  Fine, at 1074, 5                    
                USPQ2d at 1598.  Accordingly, I would reverse the rejection of claim 4                       
                under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Ley and Hojeibane or Ley                    
                and Dinh.                                                                                    

                Claim 7:                                                                                     
                      Claim 7 depends from and further limits the continuous strand of                       
                material set forth in claim 4 to be configured to also comprise 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.  While claim 7 permits the continuous strand to include both                  
                S- and W-shaped strand configurations, the use of the term “including” or                    
                “comprising” does not permit alterations (e.g., additional twists and turns, et              
                cetera) within the defined S- and W-shaped configurations.  Nevertheless,                    
                having failed to identify any disclosure in the evidence relied upon to teach a              
                stent comprising an S-shaped configuration, the Examiner failed to establish                 
                a factual basis to support the rejection.  Accordingly, I would reverse the                  
                rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Ley                    
                and Hojeibane or Ley and Dinh.                                                               





                                                     25                                                      

Page:  Previous  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013