Appeal 2007-2557
Application 10/094,866
Claims 3 & 6:
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and claim 6 depends from claim 4.
Claims 3 and 6 both depend from and further limit the continuous strand of
material of their respective independent claim to have an outer surface
including cavities at certain points in the strand that are at least partially
filled with a composition containing a medicinal agent selected to provide
medical desirable effects upon being positioned within a patient.
The Examiner finds that the combination of Ley and Hojeibane, or
Ley and Dinh “fails to disclose cavities containing medicament as claimed”
(Answer 8). To make up for this deficiency the Examiner relies on Ndondo-
Lay to teach that is was well known in the art “to put medicament-containing
cavities in similar stents. . .” (id.). Ndondo-Lay, however, fails to make up
for the deficiencies in the combination of Ley and Hojeibane, or Ley and
Dinh. Accordingly, I would reverse the rejection of claims 3 and 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Ley, Hojeibane, and Ndondo-Lay;
or Ley, Dinh, and Ndondo-Lay.
Claims 8, 10, and 13:
Claims 8, 10, and 13 stand on a different footing.
Claim 8:
Claim 8 is drawn to a stent that comprises (1) segments and (2)
interconnection bridges. Claim 8 provides structural requirements for the
relationship between the segments and the interconnection bridges.
26
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013