Appeal 2007-2557
Application 10/094,866
Claim 13:
Claim 13 depends from claim 8 and further requires that each pair of
adjacent segments are interconnected with one another by at least two
interconnection bridges. As discussed above, the combination of Ley,
Hojeibane, and Dinh teach the stent of claim 8. Dinh further teaches that
“[t]he number and position of the connecting segments joining pluralities
can be varied to alter the flexibility of the stent, as can the structure of the
connecting segment itself . . .” (Dinh, col. 7, ll. 8-11). Stated differently, in
addition to teaching narrowings in the interconnection bridges, Dinh teaches
that the number of interconnection bridges interconnecting segments can be
varied to alter the flexibility of the stent.
In my opinion, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ley’s
stent to include a plurality of narrowings in at least one interconnection
bridge and more than one interconnection bridge for the expected benefit of
optimizing the flexibility of the stent as taught by both Hojeibane and Dinh.
On reflection, it is my opinion that the stent set forth in claim 13 is
prima facie obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Ley,
Hojeibane, and Dinh.
Claim 10:
Claim 10 depends from and further limits the continuous strand of
material of claim 8 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. As discussed above, the
32
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013