Ex Parte Jang

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 17, 2008

10374774 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 17, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte G. DAVID JANG
__________

Appeal 2008-1593
Application 10/374,774
Technology Center 3700
__________

Decided: June 17, 2008
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, ERIC GRIMES, and FRANCISCO C.
PRATS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRATS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to an
intravascular stent. The Examiner has rejected the claims as anticipated and
obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.1

1 In this decision we consider only those arguments actually made by
Appellant. Arguments that Appellant could have made but chose not to
Appeal 2008-1593
Application 10/374,774

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1 and 135, the appealed independent claims, are representative
of the appealed subject matter and read as follows:
1. A stent comprising:
a first expansion strut column, the first expansion strut
column being comprised of a plurality of adjacent first
expansion strut pairs, each first expansion strut pair having a
first expansion strut and a second expansion strut, the first
expansion strut column having a plurality of first joining
portions, the first expansion strut in communication with the
second expansion strut at a first joining portion, the first
expansion strut column having a plurality of second joining
portions, each first expansion strut pair in communication with
an adjacent first expansion strut pair at each second joining
portion;
a second expansion strut column, the second expansion
strut column being comprised of a plurality of adjacent second
expansion strut pairs, each second expansion strut pair having a
first expansion strut and a second expansion strut, the second
expansion strut column having a plurality of first joining
portions, the first expansion strut in communication with the
second expansion strut at a first joining portion, the second
expansion strut column having a plurality of second joining
portions, each second expansion strut pair in communication
with an adjacent second expansion strut pair at each second
joining portion;
a first connecting strut column, the first connecting strut
column comprising at least one connecting strut, the at least one
connecting strut comprising a first end region, a second end
region and an intermediate region therebetween,
the first end region being engaged to a portion of
one of the first expansion strut pairs at a location in closer
proximity to the first expansion strut than to the second
expansion strut,
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
2
Appeal 2008-1593
Application 10/374,774

the intermediate region comprising a plurality of
bend portions,
at least a portion of the at least one connecting
strut comprising at least one wrap portion, the at least one wrap
portion being at least partially wrapped about at least one of the
first joining portions of at least one of the first expansion strut
column and the second expansion strut column, the at least one
wrap portion being substantially parallel to the at least one of
the first joining portions about which the at least one wrap
portion is wrapped.

135. A stent comprising:
a plurality of interconnected first expansion struts, the
first expansion struts forming a first expansion column having a
proximal end region and a distal end region, each first
expansion strut in communication at a proximal end with one
first expansion strut adjacent thereto and at a distal end with
another first expansion strut adjacent thereto;
a plurality of interconnected second expansion struts, the
second expansion struts forming a second expansion column
having a proximal end region and a distal end region, each
second expansion strut in communication at a proximal end
with one second expansion strut adjacent thereto and at a distal
end with another second expansion strut adjacent thereto;
a first connecting strut column comprising a plurality of
first connecting struts, each first connecting strut having a first
end region extending from the distal end region of the first
expansion column at a location in closer proximity to one first
expansion strut than to any other of the plurality of first
expansion struts, a second end region extending from the
proximal end region of the second expansion column at a
location in closer proximity to one second expansion strut than
to any other of the plurality of second expansion struts and an
intermediate region between the first end region and the second
end region, the intermediate region defining at least two bends
of each first connecting strut, at least a portion of each first
connecting strut comprising at least one wrap portion, the at
least one wrap portion being at least partially wrapped about at
least a portion of at least one of the distal end of one first
3
Appeal 2008-1593
Application 10/374,774

expansion strut and the proximal end of one second expansion
strut, the at least one wrap portion being substantially parallel to
the at least one of the distal end of one first expansion strut and
the proximal end of one second expansion strut about which the
at least one wrap portion is wrapped.

The Examiner applies the following documents in rejecting the
claims:
Globerman US 5,776,161 Jul. 7, 1998
Yan US 5,843,172 Dec. 1, 1998
Ehr US 6,033,433 Mar. 7, 2000

Globerman WO 97/33534 A1 Sep. 18, 1997

The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 16, 27, 28, 39-41, 43-61, 65, 66, 72, 73, 85, 87,
110-124, and 135 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Ehr (Ans. 3-4).
Claims 67-70 and 81-84 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ehr in view of Globerman ‘161 (Ans. 4-5).
Claims 74 and 75 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ehr alone (Ans. 5).
Claims 77-80 and 125-128 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ehr in view of Globerman ‘534 (Ans. 5).
Claims 101, 102 and 104-109 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ehr in view of Yan (Ans. 5-6).
ANTICIPATION
ISSUE
The Examiner states that “Ehr anticipates the claim language where
the structure disclosed therein reads on the claimed invention; see especially
4
Appeal 2008-1593
Application 10/374,774

Figures 2, 14, and 17” (Ans. 3). The Examiner provides an annotated copy
of Ehr’s Figure 2 to show which structures in Ehr’s disclosure correspond to
which claim limitations (see Ans. 4). The Examiner urges that, given the
breadth of the language delimiting the claimed stent’s “wrap portion” (see
claims 1 and 135), it is reasonable to interpret the claims as encompassing
Ehr’s stent (id. at 6).
Appellant also submits annotated copies of Ehr’s Figure 2 (see App.
Br. 7, 10). Appellant contends that, given the structure of Ehr’s stent, it is
unreasonable to interpret Ehr as meeting the limitations regarding the “wrap
portion” of the claimed stent’s connecting strut (id. at 7-11). Specifically,
Appellant urges that “not only does the Ehr connector fail to include any
aspect which is wrapped about a joining portion, but Ehr also fail[s] to
provide any aspect of a connector which is parallel to a joining portion as the
instant claims describe. Therefore, Ehr does not teach or suggest all of the
elements of instant claims” (App. Br. 11).
Appellant submits arguments only regarding limitations in claims 1
and 135. The issue with respect to this rejection, then, is whether the
Examiner erred in concluding that claims 1 and 135 encompass the stent
disclosed by Ehr.
FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
1. Claim 1 recites a stent having a first and second column of expansion
struts. Each column of expansion struts is composed of a plurality of
expansion strut pairs. The struts in each pair are connected by a first joining
portion, and the adjacent strut pairs are connected by second joining
portions.
5
Appeal 2008-1593
Application 10/374,774

Claim 1’s stent also has a connecting strut column with at least one
connecting strut. The connecting strut has a first end, a second end, and an
intermediate region. The first end of the connecting strut must engage one
of the first expansion strut pairs at a location closer to the first expansion
strut than to the second expansion strut. The connecting strut’s intermediate
portion must have a plurality of bend portions.
The connecting strut must have at least one “wrap portion.” Claim 1
requires the wrap portion to be “at least partially wrapped about at least one
of the first joining portions of at least one of the first expansion strut column
and the second expansion strut column.” Claim 1 also requires the wrap
portion to be “substantially parallel to the at least one of the first joining
portions about which the at least one wrap portion is wrapped.”
2. Claim 135 is directed to a similar stent having first and second
expansion columns, with each expansion strut in communication with one
adjacent expansion strut at a proximal end, and another adjacent strut at a
distal end. Claim 135’s stent also has a connecting strut column between the
two expansion columns.
Claim 135’s connecting struts must extend from the distal end region
of the first expansion column at a location closer to one first expansion strut
than to any other expansion struts in the first column, and also extend from
the proximal end region of the second expansion column at a location closer
to one second expansion strut than to any other expansion strut. The
intermediate region of each connecting strut must also have at least two
bends.
Like claim 1, claim 135 requires the connecting strut to have a “wrap
portion.” Claim 135 requires the wrap portion to be “at least partially
6
Appeal 2008-1593
Application 10/374,774

wrapped about at least a portion of at least one of the distal end of one first
expansion strut and the proximal end of one second expansion strut.” Claim
135 also requires the wrap portion to be “substantially parallel to the at least
one of the distal end of one first expansion strut and the proximal end of one
second expansion strut about which the at least one wrap portion is
wrapped.”
3. The Specification does not define the terms “wrap portion” or
“wrapped about.” However, Appellant’s disclosure provides several
examples of wrap portions that wrap about the joining portions of adjacent
expansion columns. For example, Appellant’s Figure 15, reproduced below,
shows one embodiment of Appellant’s stent having a wrap portion:

Regarding Figure 15, the Specification states:
The connectors shown in FIGs 13-15 are provided with
four bend portions 310a, 310b, 310c and 310d.
As a result of the unique shape of the connectors 38 and
the longitudinally offset arrangement of adjacent first expansion
strut pairs 32a and second expansion strut pairs 32b, as the
7
Appeal 2008-1593
Application 10/374,774

wrap portion 308 of each connector 38 wraps about the first
joining strut 30a of the first expansion strut pair 24a it also
wraps about the first joining strut 30a of the second expansion
strut pair 24b.

(Spec. 41 (emphasis added).) In Figure 15 wrap portion 308 is shown as two
portions 308a and 308b at the bottom right corner of the figure.
4. Ehr discloses “stents of improved configuration which incorporate
spiral articulations which unwind to form bracing structures or scaffolding
upon expansion” (Ehr, col. 1, ll. 7-9). Ehr’s stents are metal tube-like
structures that are cut into specific configurations allowing for their
expansion (id. at col. 2, ll. 15-26). Figure 2 of Ehr, reproduced below,
shows one configuration of the expandable elements:

Ehr describes Figure 2 as follows:

Elements 12 are interconnected by pairs of elongated members
13a and 13b which are attached at one end to successive loops
14 of a segment 12 and which are joined at their other ends to
adjacent pairs of elongated members 13a and 13b . . . .
Members 13a and 13b are preferably of narrower gauge than
8
Appeal 2008-1593
Application 10/374,774

members 12 and are joined together in a coiled or spiral
arrangement as shown generally at 16. Spiral 16 forms a
structure about which members 13 may uncoil or unwind in a
counterclockwise direction or clockwise direction to a
substantially straight condition, depending on the spiral
winding direction, upon radial expansion of members 12.

(Ehr, col. 2, ll. 26-37.)

5. The Examiner provided the following annotated version of Ehr’s
Figure 2 in support of the anticipation rejection (Ans. 4):

The Examiner’s annotated copy of Ehr’s Figure 2 shows Appellant’s
claimed first and second expansion strut columns with the intermediate
region between the two columns, as well as the first and second strut of the
second column, and the expansion struts’ joining portions (Ans. 4). The
Examiner’s annotated copy of Ehr’s Figure 2 also shows the claimed wrap
portion adjacent to the joining portions of the expansion struts (id.).
9
Appeal 2008-1593
Application 10/374,774

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every
limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). During examination, the
PTO must interpret terms in a claim using “the broadest reasonable meaning
of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner that it was reasonable to conclude that
claims 1 and 135 encompass Ehr’s stent. Ehr’s stent has the first and second
expansion columns consisting of pairs of expansion struts interconnected in
the manner recited in claim 1, as well as claim 1’s intermediate portion with
a connecting strut connected more closely to one expansion strut of a pair
than the other (see FF 5). Ehr’s connecting strut (i.e. the intermediate region
in the Examiner’s annotated version of Ehr’s Figure 2), has a plurality of
bends as required in claim 1 (see FF 5).
The configuration of Ehr’s stent shown in Figure 2 also meets claim
135’s limitations requiring two sets of interconnected expansion struts that
form columns, and a connecting strut column (i.e. the intermediate region in
the Examiner’s annotated version of Ehr’s Figure 2), with the connecting
struts connected more closely to one expansion strut of the expansion strut
pairs (FF 5). Ehr’s connecting struts have at least two bends, as required by
claim 135 (see id.).
10
Appeal 2008-1593
Application 10/374,774

With respect to the disputed limitations, Appellant argues that the
Examiner, “throughout the prosecution, has yet to identify any portion of the
Ehr connector which is at least partially wrapped about a joining portion (or
in the case of claim 135 a distal end or proximal end of an expansion strut)
of the expansion column as the instant claims describe” (App. Br. 7). In
support of this argument, Appellant submits an annotated copy of Ehr’s
Figure 2, reproduced below (App. Br. 7):

Appellant’s annotated copy of Ehr’s Figure 2 identifies the expansion
struts, joining portions, and connectors (App. Br. 7).
Appellant notes that connecting segments 13a and 13b initially extend
perpendicularly away from the expansion struts, and argue that “a segment
extending perpendicularly to the expansion column cannot, by any
interpretation of the word ‘wrapped’ be considered to be substantially
wrapped about a portion of said column” (App. Br. 8). Appellant also
argues that elements 13a and 13b do not meet the “wrapped about”
limitation because “a segment which extends toward a joining portion but
11
Appeal 2008-1593
Application 10/374,774

then diverges away from the joining portion before and without reaching it
cannot be reasonably interpreted to be at least partially wrapped about said
joining portion” (id.).
We are not persuaded by these arguments. As noted above, it is well
settled that during examination the PTO must interpret terms in a claim
using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage
as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into
account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may
be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s
specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054.
In addition to the Specification, Appellant’s drawings may be
consulted to determine the meaning of claim terms. See Brookhill-Wilk 1,
LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d. 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The
ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term may be determined by
reviewing a variety of sources. Some of these sources include the claims
themselves; dictionaries and treatises; and the written description, the
drawings, and the prosecution history.” (citations omitted, emphasis added)).
In the instant case, in reference to Figures 13-15, the Specification
describes the wrap portion 308 of connecting portion 38 as “wrap[ping]
about the first joining strut 30a of the first expansion strut pair 24a [and] also
wrap[ping] about the first joining strut 30a of the second expansion strut pair
24b” (Spec. 41 (FF 3)). From viewing Figure 15, the wrap portions 308a
and 308b initially extend from their attached struts in a perpendicular
manner before extending across U-shaped joining struts (see FF 3), in a
manner similar, if not identical, to the way Ehr’s elements 13b extend from
their respective struts (see FF 4, 5).
12
Appeal 2008-1593
Application 10/374,774

Thus, given the fact that the Specification and drawings consider a
wrap portion having an initial perpendicular extension to be “wrapped
about” an adjacent joining segment, we do not agree with Appellant that the
initial perpendicular extensions on elements 13b of Ehr’s stent renders them
incapable of wrapping about the adjacent joining portion.
Moreover, the Specification describes the wrap portions in Figures 13-
15 as “wrap[ping] about” joining struts 30a (Spec. 41 (FF 3)). However, it is
evident from viewing Figure 15 that, once they extend from their attached
struts and bend toward the intermediate region, the wrap portions 308a and
308b merely extend across a portion of the joining struts 30a at a relatively
great distance, rather than being closely associated with the joining struts
30a (see Fig. 15 (FF 3)).
Ehr’s elements 13b extend across a portion of the joining strut in a
manner very similar to that shown in Appellant’s Figure 15 (see FF 3, 5).
We therefore do not agree with Appellant that Ehr’s elements 13b cannot be
reasonably interpreted to be “at least partially wrapped about” the attached
joining portion as required by claims 1 and 135 merely because they have a
segment that extends toward a joining portion and then diverges away it.
Appellant argues that element 16 in Ehr’s Figure 2 is
“circumferentially and longitudinally offset from not just one joining portion
but all the joining portions of both expansion strut columns,” and that
therefore, there “is no reasonable interpretation of the phrase ‘wrapped
about’ which one of ordinary skill in the art would attempt to impose on
element 16 of Ehr that would meet the description of the connector
described in the instant claims” (App. Br. 8).
13
Appeal 2008-1593
Application 10/374,774

We are not persuaded by this argument. From viewing the
Examiner’s annotated copy of Ehr’s Figure 2, it is evident that the Examiner
considers elements 13b, not element 16, as corresponding to the wrap
portion recited in claims 1 and 135.
In sum, when the limitation requiring the wrap portion to be “at least
partially wrapped about at least one of the first joining portions of at least
one of the first expansion strut column and the second expansion strut
column” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification and drawings, and is compared with the stent configuration
shown in Ehr’s Figure 2 as discussed above, we agree with the Examiner
that Ehr meets the “wrapped about” limitation in claims 1 and 135.
Appellant argues that Ehr fails to meet the claim 1’s limitation
requiring the at least one wrap portion to be “substantially parallel to the at
least one of the first joining portions about which the at least one wrap
portion is wrapped,” and claim 135’s limitation requiring the at least one
wrap portion to be “substantially parallel to the at least one of the distal end
of one first expansion strut and the proximal end of one second expansion
strut about which the at least one wrap portion is wrapped” (App. Br. 9-10).
Specifically, Appellant provides a second annotated copy of Ehr’s Figure 2,
which, Appellant urges, shows a wide region and a narrow region between
Ehr’s wrap portion and joining portion (id. at 10).
Appellant argues that “[t]he lack of any aspect of the connector being
substantially parallel to the joining portion is evidenced, at least partially, by
the fact that the joining portion and the segments 13a and 13b are initially
separated by a wide region which tapers to a narrow region along their
mutual lengths” (App. Br. 10-11). Appellant urges that “[t]his narrowing
14
Appeal 2008-1593
Application 10/374,774

space illustrates the fact that the segments 13 a and 13b are angled toward
the joining portion or strut end as opposed to being substantially parallel to
the joining portion or strut end as recited in the instant claims” (id. at 11).
We are not persuaded by this argument. Claims 1 and 135 only
require the wrap portion to be “substantially parallel” (emphasis added) to
the joining portion (claim 1) or the ends of the expansion struts (claim 135).
Thus, the fact that Ehr’s wrap portion does not precisely parallel these
elements does not demonstrate non-anticipation, because that is not what the
claims require. Moreover, because Ehr’s wrap portions 13b extend in
substantially the same overall direction, in a path substantially parallel to
that of the U-shaped joining portions (see FF 5), we agree with the Examiner
that Ehr’s wrap portions meet the “substantially parallel” limitations in
claims 1 and 135.
In sum, we agree with the Examiner that when claims 1 and 135 are
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification, Ehr meets all of the limitations in those claims. Because
Ehr’s stent meets all of the limitations of claims 1 and 135, we affirm the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 135.
Because they were not argued separately, claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 16, 27, 28,
39-41, 43-61, 66, 65, 66, 72, 73, 85, 87, and 110-124 fall with claims 1 and
135. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
OBVIOUSNESS -- EHR AND GLOBERMAN ‘161
Claims 67-70 and 81-84 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ehr in view of Globerman ‘161 (Ans. 4-5).
Conceding that Ehr lacks “the notch or bend in the strut as claimed,” the
Examiner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
15
Appeal 2008-1593
Application 10/374,774

considered it obvious “to put a notch or bend in the struts of Ehr for the
same reasons that Globerman [‘161] does the same or in order to provide
greater support per unit area than that provided with a straight strut of a
shorter length” (id. at 5).
Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s rationale for modifying Ehr
in accordance with Globerman ‘161. Instead, Appellant argues that because
claims 67-70 and 81-84 “all depend directly or indirectly from instant claim
1,” and because Ehr fails to meet all of claim 1’s limitations for the reasons
argued in the anticipation rejection above, “[t]he proposed addition of
[Globerman ‘161’s] bent or notched struts to Ehr does nothing to address
Ehr’s failure to teach or suggest all of the elements of the instant claims”
(App. Br. 11).
We are not persuaded by this argument. For the reasons discussed
above, we agree with the Examiner that Ehr meets all of the limitations in
claim 1. Because we detect no deficiency in the Examiner’s conclusion that
claims 67-70 and 81-84 would have been obvious in view Ehr and
Globerman ‘161, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of those
claims over the cited references.
OBVIOUSNESS -- EHR
Claims 74 and 75 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ehr alone (Ans. 5). The Examiner states that “Ehr et al
meets the claim language except for the dimensions or proportions as
claimed” (id.). The Examiner contends that the claimed dimensions or
proportions, in and of themselves, do not render the claimed device
patentable over Ehr’s otherwise identical device (see id. (citing MPEP §
2144.04 (IV)(A), and (B))).
16
Appeal 2008-1593
Application 10/374,774

Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s conclusion that one of
ordinary skill would have considered it obvious to provide Ehr’s device the
cell perimeter lengths recited in claims 74 and 75. Instead, Appellant argues
that because claims 74 and 75 “depend from claim 1 via claim 73,” and
because Ehr fails to meet all of claim 1’s limitations for the reasons argued
in the anticipation rejection above, “Ehr also fails to the render the instant
claims obvious for at least the same reasons discussed above” (App. Br. 12).
We are not persuaded by this argument. For the reasons discussed
above, we agree with the Examiner that Ehr meets all of the limitations in
claim 1. Because we detect no deficiency in the Examiner’s conclusion that
it would have been obvious to provide Ehr’s device the cell perimeter
lengths recited in claims 74 and 75, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of those claims over Ehr.
OBVIOUSNESS -- EHR AND GLOBERMAN ‘534
Claims 77-80 and 125-128 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ehr in view of Globerman ‘534 (Ans. 5).
Conceding that Ehr lacks “the use of radiopaque elements or materials as
claimed,” the Examiner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have considered it obvious to use the radiopaque elements disclosed by
Globerman ‘534 as being useful in similar stents “in the stent of Ehr in order
to make it more visible via X-ray during implantation and after implantation
so as to monitor it placement and status” (id.).
Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s rationale for modifying Ehr
in accordance with Globerman ‘534. Instead, Appellant argues that because
claims 77-80 and 125-128 “all depend directly or indirectly [from]
independent claim 1,” and because Ehr fails to meet all of claim 1’s
17
Appeal 2008-1593
Application 10/374,774

limitations for the reasons argued in the anticipation rejection above, “[t]he
proposed addition of [Globerman ‘534] does nothing to address the failure of
Ehr alone to teach or suggest all of the elements of the instant claims” (App.
Br. 12).
We are not persuaded by this argument. For the reasons discussed
above, we agree with the Examiner that Ehr meets all of the limitations in
claim 1. Because we detect no deficiency in the Examiner’s conclusion that
claims 77-80 and 125-128 would have been obvious in view of Ehr and
Globerman ‘534, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of those
claims over the cited references.
OBVIOUSNESS -- EHR AND YAN
Claims 101, 102, and 104-109 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ehr in view of Yan (Ans. 5-6). Conceding that
“Ehr fails to disclose the use of a therapeutic coating or element as claimed”
(id. at 5), the Examiner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have considered it “obvious to use a therapeutic coating or element in the
Ehr device for the same reasons that Yan does the same or in order to
improve the value of the stent in treating the patient” (id. at 6).
Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s rationale for modifying Ehr
in accordance with Yan. Instead, Appellant argues that because claims 101,
102, and 104-109 “all depend directly or indirectly from instant claim 1,”
and because Ehr fails to meet all of claim 1’s limitations for the reasons
argued in the anticipation rejection above, “[t]he proposed addition of Yan’s
therapeutic coating or element to Ehr does nothing to address Ehr’s failure to
teach or suggest all of the elements of the instant claims” (App. Br. 13).
18
Appeal 2008-1593
Application 10/374,774

We are not persuaded by this argument. For the reasons discussed
above, we agree with the Examiner that Ehr meets all of the limitations in
claim 1. Because we detect no deficiency in the Examiner’s conclusion that
claims 101, 102, and 104-109 would have been obvious in view of Ehr and
Yan, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of those claims over
the cited references.
SUMMARY
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 16, 27, 28,
39-41, 43-61, 66, 65, 66, 72, 73, 85, 87, 110-124, and 135 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as being anticipated by Ehr.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 67-70 and 81-84 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ehr in view of
Globerman ‘161.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 74 and 75 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ehr alone.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 77-80 and 125-128
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ehr in view of
Globerman ‘534.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 101, 102 and 104-109
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ehr in view of Yan.

19
Appeal 2008-1593
Application 10/374,774

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

Ssc:
VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A.
SUITE 400
6640 SHADY OAK ROAD
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344
20