Appeal 2007-2563
Application 10/058,640
Fig. 3 shows a tie member (50) connected at the peak or apex of the W-
shaped element (Dang, col. 5, ll. 20-28).
6. The Examiner finds that Dang’s W-shaped elements (Dang, col. 2, ll. 50-
62, and Figs. 2 and 7) satisfy the limitation in claims 1 and 10 of “serpentine
bands” (Answer 3) and of “serpentine bands . . . consisting of a plurality of
interconnected struts . . . of substantially the same length” as recited in claim
1 (Answer 3).
7. The Examiner finds that “tie members” disclosed in Dang (Dang, col. 2,
ll. 62-67 and Figs. 2 and 7) meet the limitation of claims 1 and 10 of a
“plurality of wishbone connectors, each . . . having an elongate portion that
does not overlap” with the serpentine bands (Answer 3-4).
Dinh
8. “With reference to Figures 5[B] and 6[B], Dinh teaches a stent 160
having plurality of serpentine bands 162 connected by a plurality of
wishbone connectors 166, the serpentine bands 162 comprising alternating
peaks and troughs, the number of peaks in the stent being twice the number
of wishbone connectors 166” (Answer 7; Dinh, col. 7, ll. 13-20).
9. “Dinh also teaches that the width of the serpentine bands 162 is greater
than that of the wishbone connectors 166 to create a stent having selectively
variable radial rigidity and longitudinal flexibility” (Answer 7; Dinh, col. 7,
ll. 13-61).
10. The Examiner concludes “in view of the teachings it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to have modified the stent disclosed by Dang to incorporate the features
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013