Appeal 2007-2812
Application 10/337,236
20. A stainless steel cap 33 is attached to the end of the catheter 21 (FF 16;
Kuntz, col. 5, ll. 15-19). This element is the same structure as the “hollow
cylinder” structure of claim 1. (See Final Office Action 5-6.)
21. Kuntz’s catheter 21 has a magnet 27 at its end which is secured inside a
dome-shaped cap 33 (FF 15-17; Kuntz, col. 4, ll. 11-15, col. 5, ll. 15-19, and
Fig. 5), satisfying the limitation of claim 1 of a “magnetically responsive
element inside said hollow cylinder” and of “dome-shaped cap securing the
magnetically responsive element inside the hollow cylinder.” (See Final
Office Action 5-6.)
22. Kuntz describes all the elements of claim 1 (FF 19-21; Final Office
Action 5-6).
23. “In regards to claim 23, Kuntz discloses a guidewire [catheter] 21
wherein the magnetically responsive element 27 comprises a permanent
magnetic element that is capable of aligning the distal end of the guidewire
21 with the direction of a magnetic field that is applied from an external
source magnet (see column 5/lines 15-22)” (Final Office Action 6).
DISCUSSION
Anderson
Claims 1-3, 6-12, 15, 16, 18, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as anticipated by Anderson (Answer 2).
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that “each and every
element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently
described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil
Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). In this
case, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that Anderson anticipates claim
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013