Appeal No. 1999-0712 Page 7
Application No. 08/748,669
While Schatz uses the term "graft" or "prosthesis" rather than "stent" as recited in claim
41, we understand the terms "graft" and "stent" as used in the field of the appellants' invention
to be synonyms which refer to devices which are inserted into a body passageway in order to
expand the lumen therein which has been narrowed by disease or a condition known as
stenosis. Our understanding of the terms "graft" and "stent" as synonyms in the art is
confirmed by such use of these terms by Samson (abstract, line 1, and column 1, line 5), for
example. Therefore, given the interchangeability of the terms "stent" and "graft" in the art,
Schatz' repeated use (column 13, line 14, to column 14, line 41) of the same term "graft" to
describe each subcomponent graft 70 (tubular member 71) as well as the more comprehensive
graft 70' leads us to conclude that the examiner's characterization of the central graft 70 of
Figure 7 of Schatz as a "stent" (answer, pages 3 and 4) is reasonable in this instance.
Having determined that the central graft 70 is a "stent" as used in claim 41, we also
observe that this graft has two ends , each of which is connected to a connecting member 1003
which, as modified in view of the teachings of Wolff as discussed above, is coated with
radiopaque material to form a "radiopaque marker." From our perspective, each of these
radiopaque markers, by virtue of being connected to the end of the central graft (or stent) 70 is
"at an end of the stent" as required by claim 41.
3As correctly pointed out by the examiner (answer, page 4), the claims do not preclude the end of the stent
being connected to other stents.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007