Ex Parte Osborne

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 27, 2013

10581330 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013)

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