Appeal 2007-2563
Application 10/058,640
Examiner contends that “[t]he term overlap is considered to mean, ‘to cover
a part of.’ There are no components disclosed by Dang that are covered by
another part” (Answer 8). The first issue in this appeal is whether the
Examiner erred in determining that Dang describes a stent having serpentine
bands which do not overlap with the legs of the wishbone connector as
recited in claims 1 and 10.
Secondly, Appellants contend that the bands described by Dang
“consist of not only struts of substantially the same length but also [of] the
extraneous features of the ‘legs’ of each wishbone connector [described as
the “tie member” in Dang]” which are excluded from the serpentine bands of
claim 1 by the limitation “consisting of a plurality of struts” (Br. 7). The
Examiner contends that Appellants are “giving to[o] much weight to the
word[s] “consisting of” in claim 1, and the phrase does not “limit the
serpentine bands to be made solely of struts” (Answer 8). The second issue
in this appeal is whether the recitation in claim 1 that the serpentine bands
are “consisting of . . . interconnected struts” excludes the tie members of
Dang.
Both these issues turn on claim interpretation. Consequently, we
begin our analysis with the interpretation of claims 1 and 10.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
Claims 1 and 10 are directed to stents which comprise “a plurality of
axially spaced serpentine bands” and “a plurality of wishbone connectors.”
The wishbone connectors connect two adjacent serpentine bands together.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013