Appeal No. 2000-0447
Application No. 08/838,685
Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 (1984). Although no “litmus
test” exists as to what effect should be accorded to terms
appearing in a preamble, a patent application in its entirety
should be reviewed to determine whether the inventors intended such
language to represent additional limitations or mere introductory
language. See, e.g., In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1673-74 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(citing Corning Glass Works v.
Suitomo Elect. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257, 9 USPQ2d 1962,
1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
A review of appellants’ specification reveals that appellants’
flow directed catheter is so flexible at its distal end and mid
regions that it is carried by blood flowing to a target site
(specification at page 2). The appellants’ specification further
discloses that the distal end therein disclosed is made of polymer
which is inherently quite springy and flexible and biologically
compatible such as polyvinylchloride (specification at page 4).
Regarding the softness of the distal end, appellants’ specification
discloses that the distal end has a hardness of between 60A and 70A
shore.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007