Appeal 2007-2766
Application 09/880,615
would be accomplished by varying the pore size of the stent material – the
same solution taught by Solovay (FF 10). In other words, Solovay’s
teaching about stent coverings is applicable to non-covered stents – which is
logical because the exterior of the stent covering would be exposed to the
body cavity as would be the exterior of the non-covered stent.
Solovay also teaches that it may be desirable to discourage growth in
certain regions of the stent covering, and suggests non-uniform porosity to
address this problem (FF 9-10). It is reasonable that such benefit would also
extend to non-covered stents, such as the stent described by Yan, because its
exterior is also exposed to the body cavity. Accordingly, the skilled worker
would have had reason to apply the teachings of Solovay to Yan’s non-
covered stent.
Appellant also argues “if one were to take the stent cover of Solovay
and then cuts [sic] it as one would in forming a stent, the very purpose of the
Solovay stent cover would be destroyed; the stent cover would at best now
sparsely and intermittently cover the stent and the struts of the stents and
would likely interfere with stent expansion as the serpentine portions of the
cut stent cover would become tangled with the serpentine bands of the
stent.” (Appeal Br. 8). As explained above, the rejection does not require
cutting Solovay’s stent into a serpentine pattern, but rather applying
Solovay’s teaching to patterned non-covered stents, such as Yan’s stent.
Appellant urges that
column 4 lines 58-64 of Yan which teaches uniform porosity
and the undesirability of areas of different porosity. As the
explicit language of the Yan reference teaches the undesirability
of areas of different porosity, it does not make sense that Yan
would teach longitudinally spaced regions of different
predetermined physical porosities. In fact, Yan teaches away
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013