Ex Parte Callol et al - Page 7

                  Appeal 2006-3287                                                                                             
                  Application 10/022,996                                                                                       

                  public generally, to lawyers or to judges, but, as section 112 says, to those                                
                  skilled in the art to which the invention pertains or with which it is most                                  
                  nearly connected.”)). Thus, even where the claim language is facially                                        
                  unambiguous, the PTO is still obligated to examine the entire patent                                         
                  disclosure, since the specification can limit the apparent breadth of a claim.                               
                  Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 480, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1554 (Fed. Cir.                                             
                  1997)(finding that Rowe’s claims, when properly interpreted, required a                                      
                  balloon angioplasty catheter capable of expanding radially and exerting                                      
                  pressure on the plaque-encrusted walls of a surrounding blood vessel).                                       
                          The majority is certainly correct in stating that where a patent                                     
                  applicant intends to use a claim term in a manner which differs from its                                     
                  ordinary meaning, the applicant is obligated to provide a clear definition of                                
                  that term in the Specification.  However, the issue before us is not whether                                 
                  Appellants have acted as their own lexicographers and attempted to use the                                   
                  term “side by side” in a manner which differs from its ordinary meaning.                                     
                  Rather, the issue raised in this appeal is whether one of ordinary skill in the                              
                  balloon catheter art would understand the term “side by side” as defining a                                  
                  specific configuration1 which differs from the configuration, i.e., end to end                               
                  (or coaxial), shown in the applied prior art2.  As explained by our reviewing                                
                  Court, the PTO's interpretation of claim terms should not be so broad that it                                
                  conflicts with the meaning given to identical terms in other patents from                                    
                                                                                                                              
                  1 “The Examiner has taken the claim term ‘side by side’ out of the context of                                
                  the art and has failed to define the term as it relates to the subject matter of                             
                  intravascular balloon catheters within the reading of the specification and                                  
                  drawings of the patent application documents.”  (Reply 4).                                                   
                  2 “Those skilled in the art would interpret Lam as showing balloon sections                                  
                  positioned ‘end to end’ and not ‘side by side.’”  (Reply 5).                                                 
                                                              7                                                                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013