Ex Parte Sharrow

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 16, 2016

11250079 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111250,079 10/11/2005
11050 7590 06/20/2016
SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLP
100 South 5th Street
Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James S. Sharrow
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1001.1710101 4741
EXAMINER
EISEMAN, ADAM JARED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3736
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
BSC.USPTO@stwiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES S. SHARROW
Appeal2014-001023
Application 11/250,079
Technology Center 3700
Before LORA M. GREEN, ULRIKE W. JENKS, and
ROBERT A. POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 20-34, 54--59, 66, and 67. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification discloses "medical device coils useful for a variety
of applications such as in guidewires, catheters, and the like" (Spec. 1 :4--5).
Figures 2 and 3 of the Specification are shown below:
1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as Boston Scientific SciMed,
Inc. (App. Br. 3).
Appeal2014-001023
Application 11/250,079
Figure 2 shows a "side elevation view of an example coil 200" (Spec. 4:30).
Figure 3 shows "a cross-sectional view of an example coil 300 shown in
Figure 2" (Spec. 4:30-31 ). "The coil 200, 300 is formed with an outer coil
210, 310 disposed around one or more inner coils, such as inner coil 220,
320. The outer coil 210, 310 has a lumen 211, 311 defined by the inner
diameter of the outer coil 210, 31 O" (Spec. 4:31-5 :3). "The inner coil 220,
320 can be coaxially disposed within the outer coil lumen 211, 311. The
outer coil 210, 310 can be in contact with the inner coil 220, 320. The inner
coil 220, 320 can have a length that is equal to or less than the length of the
outer coil 210, 31 O" (Spec. 5 :3-6).
Claim 20 is representative of the claims on appeal and reads as
follows:
20. A guidewire, comprising;
a) a core wire having a tapered distal region;
b) a first coil having a first coil length and a first coil
lumen disposed about at least a portion of the tapered distal
region, the first coil wrapped in a first direction and having a
first pitch for the length of the first coil; and
c) a second coil disposed at least partially within the first
coil lumen, the second coil wrapped in a second direction
opposite the first direction and having a second pitch for the
2
Appeal2014-001023
Application 11/250,079
length of the first coil, wherein the second pitch is greater than
the first pitch, wherein the first coil is affixed to the second coil
with a plurality of affixation points along the first coil length;
wherein the plurality of affixation points follows a helical
pattern that corresponds to the second pitch.
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
Claims 20, 26-34, 54--59, and 67 in view of Vrba,2 Gambale,3 and
l\1ori; 4
Issue
Claim 66 in view of Vrba, Gambale, and Fleischhacker, Jr.; 5 and
Claims 21-25 in view of Vrba, Gambale, l\1ori, and Burmeister.6
I.
The Examiner has rejected claims 20, 26-34, 54--59, and 67 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Vrba, Gambale, and Mori (Ans. 3-
7), and claims 21-----25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Vrba,
Gambale, Yviori, and Bun11eister (Ans. 9-10). The same issue is dispositive
for both of these rejections, and we will consider them together.
The issue presented is: Does the evidence of record support the
Examiner's conclusion that Vrba, Gambale, and Mori would have made
obvious a guidewire comprising two coils each having a different pitch and
"wherein the first coil is affixed to the second coil with a plurality of
affixation points along the first coil length; [and] wherein the plurality of
2 Anthony Vrba et al., US 2004/0122340 Al, published June 24, 2004.
3 Richard A. Gambale, US 4,763,647, issued Aug. 16, 1988.
4 Toshiyuki Mori, US 3,739,770, issued June 19, 1973.
5 Joseph F. Fleischhacker, Jr., US 5,984,877, issued Nov. 16, 1999.
6 Paul H. Burmeister et al., US 2003/0032897 Al, published Feb. 13, 2003.
3
Appeal2014-001023
Application 11/250,079
affixation points follows a helical pattern that corresponds to the second
pitch," as required by claim 20 (emphasis added)?
Findings of Fact
1. Vrba discloses "a guidewire with an improved distal tip ...
[which] allow[ s] the clinician to precisely direct the guidewire to a specific
location within the vasculature" (Vrba, i-f 8). "The radiopaque inner coil may
be coupled to the distal end of the shaft proximate the solder tip. An outer
coil may be disposed along the length of the shaft; a portion of the outer coil
may be disposed over the inner coil" (Vrba, i-f 9, see i-f 37). "Solder tip 22
may ... fix outer coil 20 relative to core wire 12. Alternatively, outer coil
20 may be soldered to core wire 12 proximate solder tip 22" (Vrba, i-f 20).
2. Figure 4 of Vrba is shown below:
.\.:~ G :~~:~ ~:;
'J /;'.3}~) ,l'J ~\
1~~~7~}-
· .. :/.~> / 'i < {~ ~ .~) .j.~~ ~.' . .\.)::? . . 2:~ ·.) ~~.-- ~ ,•
::; ~ f) ':' ·);;} .... ~~,~-'.~'
Figure 4 shows "a cross-sectional view of the distal end of ... [a]
guidewire" (Vrba, i-f 15). "Guidewire 310 includes shaft 312 that includes
distal end 316 ... [S]haft 312 has a narrowed or tapered region 332
proximate distal end 316 similar to the tapered region shown in FIG. 1"
(Vrba, i-f 35). "The reduction in the thickness of shaft 312 adjacent tapered
region 332 ... may aid in the maintenance of ... the distal flexibility of
guidewire 310 ... [G]uidewire 310 may include a proximal hub similar to
hub 24" (Vrba, i-f 35).
4
Appeal2014-001023
Application 11/250,079
3. Vrba discloses that
A number of couplings, connections, or attachments may
join various combinations of inner coil 318, outer coil 320, and
shaft 312 (and/or ribbon 334). For example, it may be desirable
to attach outer coil 320 to inner coil 318. Alternatively, it may
be desirable to join inner coil 318 to shaft 312, outer coil 3 20 to
shaft 312, or to join all three components. The type of attachment
may also vary. For example, the various combinations of
components may be joined by an adhesive, by solder, by a weld,
by a mechanical bond, or other suitable means. Moreover, the
location of the connection may also be varied. For example, it
may be desirable to join outer coil 320 and inner coil 318 at a
location adjacent proximal end 328 of inner coil. . . . [I]t may
also be desirable to join any combination of the components ...
adjacent the distal ends of inner and outer coils 318/320, or at
essentially any other suitable position along the length of
guidewire 310.
Vrba, i-f 38.
4. Vrba discloses that, in some embodiments,
it may be desirable to alter the pitch of inner coil 318 and/or
[outer coil] 320. For example, outer coil may include one or
more increased pitch regions 336 and inner coil 318 may include
also include one or more increased pitch regions 338. In
embodiments where inner coil 318 and outer coil 320 are
attached, it may be desirable join coils 318/320 adjacent the
increased pitch regions 336/338. This arrangement may
incorporate a number desirable features into guidewire 310. For
example, if a solder joint 339 is used to join coils 318/320,
including increased pitch regions 336/338 adjacent the joint may
help to reduce or prevent the spreading or wicking of solder
laterally from the joint. This feature is desirable because the
wicking of solder may create stiff or generally less flexible
regions of guidewire 310 that may interfere with the desired
flexibility characteristics of guidewire 310.
Vrba, i-f 39.
5
Appeal2014-001023
Application 11/250,079
5. Vrba discloses that it may be
desirable to alter the direction of the winding of inner coil 318
and/or outer coil 320. For example, inner coil 318 may be wound
in the opposite direction of outer coil 320. . . [O]rienting the
directions of the winding of coils 318/320 may help to reduce or
prevent any nesting that may occur between coils 318/320.
Vrba, i-f 40.
6. Gambale discloses a steerable guidewire that
has an elongate main wire having a tapered distal portion and a
helical coil mounted about the distal portion. An inner helical
coil is disposed within the outer coil is secured at its proximal
end to the distal tip of the tapered distal portion of the main wire
and at its distal end to the distal end of the outer coil.
Gambale, Abstract.
7. Gambale discloses that the "degree of flexibility may be varied
as desired by spacing selected of the adjacent coils in one or both of the
inner and outer coils to provide the desired composite flexibility
characteristics" (Gambale, col. 2, 11. 19-22).
8. Gambale discloses that the "spacing on the outer and inner coils
16, 22 may be varied to provide a wide range of flexibility of the guidewire.
In the illustrative embodiment, the spacing 28 of the individual turns in inner
coil 22 is of the order of 0.0002" (Gambale, col. 3, 11. 52-56).
The spacing on one of the coils may be different from the spacing
on the other and the spacing on one or both of the coils may be
such that portions of the coil have different spacing than other
portions of the coil, thereby to vary the flexibility characteristics
of the device.
(Gambale, col. 3, 11. 56-61).
9. Mori discloses a:
bendable tube portion in an endoscope comprises two helically
wound metal strips, one of which closely surrounds the other.
6
Appeal2014-001023
Application 11/250,079
The strips are wound in opposite directions and the turns of one
strip are secured to corresponding turns of the other strip in the
plane of bending motion of the tube portion.
(Mori, Abstract).
10. Figure 2 of Mori is shown below:
Figure 2 shows "a side view of the bendable tube portion of the endoscope
... [with] the protecting sheath being omitted" (Mori, col. 2, 11. 1-3 ).
The controllably bendable tube portion 43 ... comprises
two wall layers 41, 42 each made of a helically wound strip of
strong and resilient metal, the strip 41 closely surrounding the
strip 42. The direction 45 of the helical winding of the strip 41
is opposite to that of the strip 42.
Each tum of the strip 41 is secured to the corresponding
tum of the strip 42 by means of spot welds 43' in the plane of
bending of the tube, i.e., in the plane 50 passing through the axis
of the tube and perpendicular to the plane of FIG. 2 on both sides
of the tube portion 43.
(Mori, col. 2, 11. 41-52.)
Analysis
The Examiner finds that Vrba discloses a guidewire comprising a
"core wire (element 312) having a tapered distal region" (Ans. 3, citing
Vrba, i-fi-135--40 and Figs. 1 and 4). The Examiner finds that Vrba discloses a
first coil (element 320) disposed about the tapered distal region and second
coil (element 318) disposed about the tapered distal region "wrapped in a
second direction opposite of the first coil ... and having a second pitch ...
[wherein the] pitch of the inner or outer coil may be altered as desired" (Ans.
7
Appeal2014-001023
Application 11/250,079
3, citing Vrba, iii! 37, 39, and 40 and Fig. 3). The Examiner finds that Vrba
discloses that "the first coil is affixed to the second coil with a plurality of
affixation points along the first coil length" (Ans. 3, citing Vrba, if 38). The
Examiner finds that Vrba does not disclose that "the second pitch is greater
than the first pitch; [or] that the plurality of affixation points follow[ s] a
helical pattern that corresponds to the second pitch" (Ans. 4). The Examiner
finds that Gambale discloses that "the spacing of the turns of the inner and
outer coils of a steerable guidewire may be varied in order to vary the
flexibility characteristics of the guidewire" (Ans. 4, citing Gambale, col. 3,
11. 52---61 and Figs. 1 and 2). The Examiner finds that Mori discloses
strengthening "a bendable tube made from two coils wrapped in opposite
directions by affixing the first coil to the second coil at each coil winding of
the second coil ... such that the affixation points follow a generally helical
pattern that corresponds to the second pitch" (Ans. 4). The Examiner
concludes that "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
... to vary the pitch of the second coil to be greater than the pitch of the first
coil in order to vary the flexibility and achieve a desired flexibility as taught
by Gambale" (id. at 4--5). "Using a pitch for the second coil that is greater
than the pitch of the first coil in the Vrba/Gambale combination would be
obvious to try, selecting from a finite number of identified, predictable
solutions ... [i.e.] the second coil hav[ing] a pitch of either less than, equal
to, or greater than the first coil ... to achieve different flexibilities" (id. at
5).
Appellant argues that the Examiner cites Vrba's paragraph 38 as
disclosing that the first coil is affixed to the second coil with a plurality of
affixation points (App. Br. 7). Appellant argues that the Examiner has
8
Appeal2014-001023
Application 11/250,079
interpreted Vrba's disclosure in paragraph 38 of a "'number of couplings,
connections, or attachments' to mean that there may be a quantity of
couplings, connections, or attachments, thereby implying more than one
attachment point" (id. at 8). Appellant argues that it is clear from Figure 4
and the context of the disclosure that Vrba is disclosing "that there may be a
number of alternative couplings, connections, or attachments between
certain combinations of elements ... [i.e.] different means of attachment,
[but] not a plurality of attachment points" (id.). Appellant argues that the
Examiner cited Vrba's paragraph 39 as disclosing attachment of the coils
adjacent regions of increased pitch wherein there may be multiple regions of
increased pitch and therefore, multiple attachments (id. at 8-9). Appellant
argues that, contrary to the Examiner's assertion, Vrba discloses regions of
increased pitch on either side of solder joint to prevent spreading or wicking
of solder, but does disclose multiple solder joints (id. at 9). Appellant argues
that Vrba does not disclose "that there may be more than one 'connection' or
affixation point between the first and second coils along the first coil length"
(id. at 8).
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive. Vrba discloses that
couplings, connections, or attachments may be used to join various
combinations of inner coil 318, outer coil 320, and shaft 312, wherein it may
be desirable to join the outer coil to the inner coil (FF 3). Vrba discloses that
it may be desirable to join outer coil 320 and inner coil 318 at a location that
is adjacent the proximal end of the inner coil (FF 3). Vrba discloses that it
may be desirable to join any combination of the components at a location
"adjacent the distal ends of inner and outer coils 318/320 or any other
suitable position along the length of guidewire 31 O" (FF 3). Vrba also
9
Appeal2014-001023
Application 11/250,079
discloses that "it may be desirable to alter the pitch of inner coil 318 and/ or
[outer coil] 320" and that it may be desirable join the inner and outer coils
adjacent the increased pitch regions to reduce or prevent the spreading or
wicking of solder from the joint (FF 4). Thus, Vrba discloses that it may be
desirable to couple the inner and outer coils at the distal end, at the proximal
end, or at any suitable location along the coils. In view of this disclosure in
Vrba, we agree with the Examiner that Vrba suggests affixing the Vrba's
outer and inner coils at a plurality of locations along the length of the first
coil or outer coil.
Appellant argues that although Mori discloses spot welding inner and
outer coiled strips together (App. Br. 12), one of skill in the art would not
choose spot welding of the inner and outer coils together as an alternative
means of attachment, as asserted by the Examiner, because Vrba and
Gambale "specifically teach that the first and second coils are spaced apart,
are maintained in that spaced-apart relationship, and that the spaced-apart
relationship is desired" (Reply Br. 3).
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive. Vrba expressly suggests
that the various combination of components, i.e. the shaft, the outer coil, and
the inner coil, may be joined together by soldering, i.e. using additional
material, or by other means such as a mechanical bond (FFs 3 and 4). Thus,
one of skill in the art would understand Vrba to suggest that the inner and
outer coil could be joined together at various points while still maintaining a
generally spaced apart relationship.
Appellant also argues that the combination of the references does not
suggest a helical pattern of attachment points (App. Br. 13-14). Appellant
argues that "the 'pattern' formed by the spot welds 43' of Mori does not
10
Appeal2014-001023
Application 11/250,079
appear to be helical. Instead, Mori appears to expressly disclose placing the
spot welds 43' 'in the plane of bending of the tube' ... at 180 degree
intervals around the tube, thereby forming an essentially linear pattern"
(App. Br. 13, citing Mori, col. 2, 11. 47-52). Appellant argues that, "[i]n
order to recognize a pattern as helical, one of ordinary skill in the art would
expect to 'see' the individual points or elements (in this case, spot welds)
define the alleged pattern as a recognizable helical shape" (Reply Br. 3).
The Examiner responds that the pattern is helical because "every weld
would be on a helical pattern (i.e. for example once at every tum of the
helix), as evidenced by the fact that each of the welds lies on the helical
pattern identified by the path of the second coil. ... [I]f every weld lies on
the helical path of the second coil, then the welds themselves follow a
generally helical path" (Ans. 12-13). "The fact that the welds are only
placed at 180 degree intervals on the helical path, does not discount the fact
that they are disposed on the helical pattern" (Ans. 13).
We agree with the Examiner's reasoning and conclusion. As
disclosed in Figure 4 of Vrba (FFs 2 and 4), a soldered connection between
an inside coil and an outside coil could be of a width that covers more than
one tum of coil with a shallow pitch. If an inside coil with a steep pitch is
soldered to an outside coil with a shallow pitch, as suggested by the
combination of the references, the solder joint would necessarily follow the
path of the steeper inside coil to create a helical pattern, even if the coils
were only joined in approximately one plane, i.e. every 180 degrees, as
disclosed in Mori (FF 10).
Appellant argues that although Vrba does not "explicitly discount the
possibility of multiple attachment points, Vrba ... offer[ s] considerable
11
Appeal2014-001023
Application 11/250,079
support for the use of a single attachment point and a stated goal of
improving, increasing, or limiting change in the flexibility of the guidewire"
(App. Br. 10). Appellant argues that Vrba "expressly state[ s] that flexibility
is a desired characteristic. As such, the Examiner's proposed modification
appears to be improper" (id.). Appellant argues that Vrba "discourages the
selection of multiple attachment points, and therefore the proposed
modification is improper" (Reply Br. 3).
Appellant's argument is not persuasive. As discussed above, Vrba
suggests that multiple connections may be made between the inner and outer
coil. Additionally, Appellant has not pointed to anything in Vrba as
suggesting that multiple connections between the inner and outer coil would
necessarily impact the desired flexibility.
Thus, we affirm the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 26-34, 54--59, and 67 have not been argued separately and therefore
fall with claim 20. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c) (1) (iv).
The Examiner has also rejected claims 21-25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Vrba, Gambale, I\1ori, and
further in view of Bunneister. For these rejections, Appellant argues that
Burmeister does not cure the deficiencies of Vrba, Gambale, and J\lfori in
making obvious independent claim 20 (App. Br. 16). We affirm the
rejections of claims 21-25 for the reasons discussed above and as set forth
by the Examiner (Ans. 9-10; Final Act. 9).
12
Appeal2014-001023
Application 11/250,079
IL
Issue
The Examiner has rejected claim 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious in view of Vrba, Gambale, and Fleischhacker, Jr. (Ans. 7-9).
Claim 66 reads as follows:
66. A guidewire, comprising;
a) a core wire having a tapered distal region;
b) a first coil having a first coil length and a first coil lumen disposed
about at least a portion of the tapered distal region, the first coil wrapped in a
first direction and having a first pitch for the first coil length;
c) a second coil having a second coil length and a second coil lumen
disposed within the first coil lumen, the second coil wrapped in a second
direction opposite the first direction and having a second pitch for the first
coil length, wherein the second pitch is greater than the first pitch and the
second coil length is substantially equal to or greater than the first coil
length; and
d) means for attaching the first coil to the second coil.
The issue presented is: Does the evidence of record support the
Examiner's conclusion that the combination of Vrba, Gambale, and
Fleischhacker would have made obvious a guidewire comprising two coils
each having a different pitch and "wherein the second pitch is greater than
the first pitch and the second coil length is substantially equal to or greater
than the first coil length," as required by claim 66 (emphasis added).
Findings of Fact
11. Fleischhacker discloses "guide wires and coils with radiopaque
markings" (Fleischhacker, col. 1, 11. 11-12).
Changes in the coil structure are easily implemented in the
winding process by terminating one or more strands short of the
distal end of the spring guide wire.
13
Appeal2014-001023
Application 11/250,079
Because the basic structure of the spring guide wire is
maintained from proximal to distal end without the addition of
other elements (e.g., a separate marker coil), the handling
characteristics are not compromised by the addition of separate
component structures and tend to be consistent.
(Fleischhacker, col. 2, 11. 24--35).
12. Figure 5 of Fleischhacker is shown below:
Figure 5 shows "a cross-sectioned view of a decreasing filar guide wire"
(Fleischhacker, col. 3, 11. 53-54). Figure 5 shows
a cross sectional view of a decreasing filar spring coil 102 as
utilized in a concentrically wound guide wire 100 incorporating
a concentric, and oppositely wound multifilar spring coil 104.
The decreasing filar spring coil 102 is the outer coil providing
the radiopaque marking ... The decreasing filar spring coil 102
includes a proximal end having a plurality of multifilar wound
wires which includes a radiopaque wire strand 106 and adjacent
wire strands 108, 110 and 112 wound in a quadrifilar fashion
with region 114 including quadrifilar spring windings, region
116 including trifilar spring windings, region 118 including
bifilar spring windings, and region 120 of unifilar windings. The
radiopaque strand 106 includes a resident dashed line for
purposes of illustration only. Multifilar inner spring coil 104 is
a quadrifilar coil of conventional construction, although the
windings can be less than quadrifilar and decreased with a tracer
wire to even further enhance visibility . . . The tapered core wire
122, the decreasing filar spring coil 102 and multi filar spring
coil 104 are fixedly attached at distal tip 124 and proximal tip
126 by welding or any other suitable securing means such as
14
Appeal2014-001023
Application 11/250,079
brazing, electron beam welding, laser welding, or other suitable
affixation.
Fleischhacker, col. 5, 11. 33-56.
Analysis
The Examiner finds that Vrba does not disclose that "the second pitch
is greater than the first pitch for the first pitch length; or that the second coil
has a second pitch for the first coil length wherein the second coil has a
second coil length equal to or greater than the first coil length" (Ans. 8).
The Examiner finds that Gambale discloses that "spacing of the turns of the
inner and outer coils of a steerable guidewire may be varied in order to vary
the flexibility characteristics of the guidewire" (Ans. 8, citing Gambale, col.
3, 11. 52---61, and Figs. 1and2). The Examiner finds that Fleischhacker's
guidewire comprises "a first coil (element 102) having a first length and a
second coil (element 104) having a second length wherein the second coil
length is substantially equal to the first coil length" (Ans. 8, citing
Fleischhacker, col. 5, 11. 33-56 and Fig. 5; see FFs 11 and 12). The
Examiner concludes that "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art ... to vary the pitch of the second coil to be greater than the
pitch of the first coil in order to vary the flexibility and achieve a desired
flexibility as taught by Gambale" (Ans. 8-9). The Examiner concludes that
"it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art ... to modify
the Vrba/Gambale combination so that the second coil is equal in length to
the first coil as taught by Fleischhacker in order to provide a consistent
flexibility for the length of the first coil" (Ans. 9).
Appellant argues that they disagree with the Examiner's assertion that
it would have been obvious to modify the Vrba/Gambale combination so
15
Appeal2014-001023
Application 11/250,079
that the first and second coils are substantially equal in length (App. Br. 14 ).
Appellant argues that Vrba's "outer coil 20 extends from a tapered portion
of the core wire 12 near the proximal end 14 (to which it may be brazed .... )
to within the solder tip 22 ... Inner coil 18 appears to be wholly contained
within the interior of outer coil 20" (App. Br. 14--15, citing Vrba, i-fi-120 and
27, and Figs. 1-5). Appellant argues that "[e]xtending the inner coil 18
proximally would create an undesirable protrusion above the outer surface of
the proximal end 14 of the core wire 12, as well as place the inner coil 18
through the brazing connecting outer coil 20 to the core wire 12" (App. Br.
15).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. Vrba discloses that
both the inner coil and the outer coil may be coupled to the shaft proximate
the solder tip (FF 1 ). We agree with the Examiner's reasoning and
conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, in view
of the cited references, to have both the inner and outer coils extend
proximally and attach to the shaft at substantially the same location, and
thereby have substantially the same length, in order to provide the
advantages disclosed in Fleischhacker of having consistent handling
characteristics for the entire length of the distal end (FF 11 ).
Thus, we affirm the rejection of claim 66 as being obvious over the
combination of Vrba, Gambale, and Fleischhacker.
16
Appeal2014-001023
Application 11/250,079
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 20-34, 54--59, 66, and 67 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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
17