Monday, January 13, 2014

No prima facie case of anticipation in Ex parte Ryan

The appellants won reversal in Ex parte Ryan

We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of anticipation. “It is well settled that a claim is anticipated if each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.” Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Here, claim 1 requires a stent structure comprising upper and lower flange portions that are each attached at first and second ends to the tubular body portion and comprise a generally U-shaped or a generally V-shaped structure. Yet, the Examiner has not explained how the asserted flange portion of Revuelta has a generally V- shaped structure or a generally U-shaped structure.
Thus, we reverse the rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 6-9 and 13-17 as being anticipated by Revuelta.

Rejection under 102(e) reversed.


Post a Comment

<< Home