Appeal No. 95-0423
Application 07/696,859
appellant as distinguishing over Ritch is the step of “axially
displacing the shunt from the tool into the hole coaxially
with the latter.” According to appellant, “[t]he method of
Ritch ‘296 is entirely dissimilar as Ritch employs a cam
surface 27 to ensure that the
shunt will be laterally displaced as it is being ejected”
(brief, page 12).
Ritch states that the shunt is “discharged forwardly and
laterally” through the opening 22 into the membrane (column 6,
line 20). When the claim language “axially displacing the
shunt from the tool” is given its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification (In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969)),
without reading limitations thereinto from the specification
(Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1582, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027
(Fed. Cir. 1988)), the argued claim language does not preclude
the kind of compound discharging motion disclosed by Ritch,
which motion includes a forward or axial component. As to the
requirement that the shunt is displaced “into the hole
coaxially with the latter,” we consider the words “the latter”
-14-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007