Takeaway: The Applicant appealed an obviousness rejection of claims directed to a process of manufacturing stents. Though the Final Office Action relied on advantages taught by the secondary reference, the Advisory Action also mentioned advantages disclosed in the Applicant's specification. The Appeal Brief argued that these Applicant-known advantages actually showed that the secondary reference was non-analogous art. The Board affirmed the obviousness rejection. Though the Decision mentioned advantages taken from the secondary reference, the Board also appeared to impermissibly rely on the Applicant-known advantages as a reason to combine. (Ex parte Sciver, PTAB 2014.)
Ex parte Sciver
Appeal 2012011728; Appl. No. 12/748,271; Tech. Center 1700
Decided: October 31, 2014
The application was directed to systems methods for coating a stent with a drug.