Appeal 2007-2812
Application 10/337,236
1) Claims 1-3, 6-12, 15, 16, 18, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Anderson (US 4,244,362);
2) Claims 4, 5, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Anderson in view of Engelson (US 6,221,061);
3) Claims 13, 14, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Anderson, or alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Anderson; and
4) Claims 1 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Kuntz (US 4,790,809).
We select claims 1, 4, 14, and 23 from each rejection as representative
of each grouping for the purpose of deciding this appeal. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii). With respect to the rejection based on Kuntz, claims 1 and
23 are separately argued by Appellants. Therefore, we consider both these
claims in addressing this rejection.
Claims 1, 4, 3 (on which claim 4 depends), 14, 13 (on which claim 14
depends), and 23 read as follows:
1. A magnetically navigable medical guidewire, comprising an
elongate wire having a proximal end, and a distal end; a hollow
cylinder secured on the distal end of the wire forming the tip of
the guidewire; a magnetically responsive element inside said
hollow cylinder; and a dome-shaped cap securing the
magnetically responsive element inside the hollow cylinder.
3. The magnetically navigable medical guidewire according to
claim 1 wherein the hollow cylinder is radiopaque.
4. The magnetically navigable medical guidewire according to
claim 3 wherein the radiopaque hollow cylinder is made of gold
or a gold alloy.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013