Appeal No. 2001-0549
Application No. 08/761,422
construed as those skilled in the art would construe it (see In
re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833,
15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Specialty Composites v.
Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 986, 6 USPQ2d 1601, 1604 (Fed. Cir.
1988) and In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388
(Fed. Cir. 1983)). Like appellant, we view the tube holder and
bite block of Gereg as being positioned intermediate the ends of
the tube 14; that is, between the distal end of the tube (shown
in the lower right corner of Figure 2) and the proximal end of
the tube (shown leading up and away from the bite block in
Figure 2). Accordingly, we can think of no circumstances under
which the artisan, consistent with the appellant’s
specification, would construe the bit block and endotracheal
tube arrangement of Gereg as corresponding to the claimed hub
member attached to the proximal end portion of the body portion
of the catheter.
Since Gereg does not meet this claim limitation found in
each of the independent claims on appeal, it is unnecessary for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007