Appeal 2007-2766
Application 09/880,615
(Specification 4: 6-14). Solovay’s stent covering is designed around these
same principles (FF 9-10); thus, the Specification’s statements about cell
ingrowth and infiltration had been known in the prior art.
Solovay places smaller diameter pores in middle regions to inhibit
ingrowth and larger diameter pores in end regions to encourage cell
ingrowth (FF 9-10). Thus, skilled workers at the time of the invention
would have known, based on Solovay’s teachings, that changing stent
porosity allows the ingrowth to be manipulated. Appellant admits in the
Specification that cellular ingrowth into a stent may be desirable (see supra;
Specification 4: 6-14). Therefore, the skilled worker would have had reason
at the time the invention was made to apply Solovay’s teaching about non-
uniform porosity in a covered stent to other stent designs – such as the
claimed stent – for the advantages described by Solovay. Persons of skill in
the art being familiar with stent use, design, and manufacture would have
considered the application of Solovay’s teaching about covered stents to the
particular class of stents described in Yan as a routine exercise of their skills
(FF 1-3), including stents with serpentine patterns as recited in claim 32.
Appellant contends that Solovay discloses a stent cover which is
“placed about a stent” (Appeal Br. 7). He asserts that a “skilled person in
the art will not look to the stent cover art to find a method for manufacturing
a stent having longitudinally spaced regions of different predetermined
porosities” (Appeal Br. 7).
We do not find this argument persuasive. As stated above, Appellant
admits in the Specification (Specification 4: 5) that it may be desired to have
ingrowth into the stent – the same event that is described by Solovay as
desirable for its stent covering (FF 9). Appellant even explains that this
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013