Appeal 2007-2557
Application 10/094,866
that includes, inter alia, a connecting bar (Dinh, col. 4, ll. 5-15) or
connecting segment (Dinh, col. 6, ll. 62-64). According to Dinh, “[t]he
connecting segment most broadly is any means to join one unit cell to
another, to connect one plurality of unit cells to another for formation of a
stent from the unit cells of the invention (Dinh, col. 6, l. 64 – col. 7, l. 1). As
I understand it, Dinh’s connecting bars and segments are equivalent to
Appellant’s interconnection bridges. According to Dinh, the flexibility of
the unit cell can be varied by changing the length and width of the unit cell
components, e.g. the connecting bar (Dinh, col. 5, ll. 63-66). No doubt,
neither Hojeibane nor Dinh expressly teach a plurality of narrowings,
however, both references teach a narrowing in the interconnection bridges
results in a more flexible stent. Common sense would dictate that the
flexibility results from bending proximate the narrowings. 10 In addition,
Dinh teaches that the dimensions of the entire connecting bar or segment can
be varied (Dinh, col. 6, ll. 29-36).
In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the
combined teachings of Hojeibane and Dinh would recognize that to obtain a
stent with optimal flexibility the number of narrowings in any given
interconnection bridge must be optimized. As set forth in In re Huang,
100 F.3d 135, 139, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996),
[t]his court and its predecessors have long held . . . that even
though applicant’s modification results in great improvement
and utility over the prior art, it may still not be patentable if the
10 Evidence is to be viewed through the lens of a person of ordinary skill in
the art with consideration of common knowledge and common sense.
Dystar Textilfarben GMBH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464
F.3d 1356, 1367, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1650 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
30
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013