Appeal 2007-2766
Application 09/880,615
the stent, where each of the different porosities extends along the entire
length of the stent.
In sum, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to establish
prima facie obviousness of claims 23 and 32. Claims 26-30, 35-37, and 39
fall with claims 23 and 32 because separate arguments for their patentability
were not provided. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
REJECTION OVER YAN IN VIEW OF SOLOVAY AND RICHTER
Claims 24, 33, 38, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Yan in view of Solovay and Richter.
We select claim 24 as representative of the claims for the purpose of
deciding this rejection. Claim 24, which depends on claim 23, recites that “a
first portion of the tube is made from a first metal and a second portion of
the tube, axially spaced from the first portion of the tube is made from a
second metal different from the first metal.”
The Examiner contends that Richter discloses a stent comprising first
and second serpentine segments which are made of first and second metals,
respectively (FF 16, 17; Answer 6). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified
Yan’s stent with Richter’s teaching “in order to provide more flexibility at
the ends to allow the stent to accommodate the curvature of a vessel in
which the stent is implanted” (Answer 7). Appellant does not identity any
defect in the Examiner’s reasoning, and as we find none, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 24. Claims 33, 38, and 40 fall with claim 24
because separate arguments for their patentability were not provided. See 37
C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013