Ex Parte Bicek et al - Page 10

                Appeal 2007-2563                                                                             
                Application 10/058,640                                                                       


                USPQ2d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2001).  In this case, we agree with                             
                Appellants that Dang does not anticipate claims 1 and 10 because it does not                 
                describe a stent, as claimed, in which each leg of an elongate connector                     
                “does not overlap longitudinally” with the serpentine bands; Dang’s                          
                connector legs overlap with the serpentine bands. Thus, we reverse the                       
                rejection of claims 1 and 10, and dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 11, 13, and 14.                  
                      The Examiner argues that Appellants give “to[o] much weight to the                     
                claim language” of “does not overlap longitudinally” (Answer 8).   The                       
                scope of a claim is defined by the language used to describe the invention.                  
                The “weight” of each term recited in the claim is measured by properly                       
                determining “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary                  
                usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking                
                into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that                  
                may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s                      
                specification.”  In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027                     
                (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Examiner interprets the term “overlap” as we do – to                   
                mean “to cover a part of” (Answer 8).  The “legs” of Dang’s tie member                       
                coincide with, and therefore necessarily, cover a part of the serpentine band.               
                Thus, giving the claim interpretation its proper weight in defining the scope                
                of the claim, we conclude that Dang does not meet the limitation excluding                   
                overlap between the legs and struts.                                                         
                Claim 1 also requires that the serpentine bands are “consisting of a                         
                plurality of interconnect struts.”  We do not find that this limitation alone                
                distinguishes the stent of claim 1 from Dang’s stent.  We interpreted                        
                “consisting of” to exclude any other structural member from the serpentine                   

                                                     10                                                      

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013