Ex Parte OsborneDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201310581330 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/581,330 03/07/2007 Thomas A. Osborne 8627/1247 (PA-5573-PCT/US 3188 48004 7590 02/27/2013 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE/INDY/COOK BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE CAPITAL CENTER, SUITE 1100 201 NORTH ILLINOIS STREET INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204-4220 EXAMINER JOHNSON, CHRISTINA ANN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1742 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/27/2013 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte THOMAS A. OSBORNE ____________ Appeal 2012-001023 Application 10/581,330 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges. KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, and 21-33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method of manufacturing an introducer sheath, comprising: positioning a coil over a mandrel; positioning a first polymeric sleeve over the coil and the mandrel, the first polymeric sleeve comprising a first striped extrusion arranged in a generally helical pattern along an outer surface of the first sleeve; positioning a second polymeric sleeve over the first sleeve, the second polymeric sleeve comprising a second striped extrusion arranged in a generally helical pattern along Appeal 2012-001023 Application 10/581,330 2 the second sleeve, the second striped extrusion having a pitch extending in a generally opposite direction from a pitch of the first striped extrusion; positioning a heat shrink tube over an assembly comprising the mandrel, coil, and first and second sleeves; and heating the assembly to a temperature sufficient to cause the heat shrink material to shrink, such that the first and second polymeric sleeves melt together to form a tubular polymeric sheath body enveloping said coil, said second striped extrusion being superposed over said first striped extrusion in said sheath body to define a generally braid-like configuration therein, said braid-like configuration disposed radially outwardly from said coil. The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of obviousness: van Muiden EP 0 662,385 A1 Jul. 12, 1995 Garabedian et al. (Garabedian) 6,171,295 B1 Jan. 9, 2001 Hoste 6,508,806 B1 Jan. 21, 2003 Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a method of making an introducer sheath that is used in the medical arts as a conduit for introducing medical interventional devices, such as an angioplasty catheter. The method entails positioning a coil, a first polymeric sleeve and a second polymeric sleeve over a mandrel, and then positioning a heat shrink tube over the assembly. The first and second polymeric sleeves comprise first and second striped extrusions arranged in a generally helical pattern. The second striped extrusion has a pitch extending in a generally opposite direction from the pitch of the first striped extrusion. Appealed claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 21-30, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoste in view of van Muiden. Appeal 2012-001023 Application 10/581,330 3 Claims 31 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the stated combination of references further in view of Garabedian. We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of Section 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons set forth in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. There is no dispute that Hoste, like Appellant, teaches a method of making an introducer sheath by positioning a coil over a mandrel, placing a polymeric braided member over the coil and positioning a heat shrink tube over the assembly before applying heat. As recognized by the Examiner, Hoste does not teach Appellant’s second polymeric sleeve positioned over the first polymeric sleeve. However, van Muiden evidences that it was known in the catheter art to employ first and second braided, polymeric sleeves as reinforcing members during manufacturing over a mandrel. Hence, we fully concur with the Examiner that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the two braided members of van Muiden for the single braided layer of Hoste, or add an additional braided, reinforcing member to the assembly of Hoste. The obviousness of utilizing two polymeric, braided reinforcing members is underscored by Hoste’s teaching that both wire layers are fully impregnated with a flexible polymer matrix (col. 5, ll. 10-11), and van Muiden’s teaching that the Appeal 2012-001023 Application 10/581,330 4 assembly may comprise either one or a plurality of braided, polymeric reinforcing layers (col. 5, ll. 4-7). Appellant maintains that “Hoste provides no teaching or suggestion of achieving a braid function by heat shrinking two layers together” (Br. 8, last para.). However, as noted above, Hoste teaches two wound layers that are fully impregnated with a flexible polymer matrix that are bound together upon heat shrinking. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “[e]ven when Hoste’s process is modified by incorporating the teachings of van Muiden, those teachings do not support melting the layers of van Muiden together to form a braid-like configuration” (Br. 10, first para.). As pointed out by the Examiner, Hoste teaches the use of a heat shrink jacket process to impregnate the wire structures with a polymer matrix, and when Hoste’s process is modified by adding the second braided layer of van Muiden, it is reasonable to expect that the polymeric sleeves would melt together during bonding. As for the stated goal of both references to minimize all thickness, we are satisfied that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to strike the proper balance between thickness and strength in determining the optimum number of braided, reinforcing sleeves. Appellant does not present separate, substantive arguments for any particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 1. As a final point, we note that Appellant bases no argument upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results. Appeal 2012-001023 Application 10/581,330 5 In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED cam Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation