Appeal No. 96-0877
Application 08/123,639
impart vibratory energy to the leaflets of
the valve. In short, Casey [sic, Carey], et
al. is simply not relevant or suggestive of
the present invention. [brief, pages 8-9]
Admittedly, Carey does not expressly teach that the
transducers 124 and 126 impart vibratory energy to the
prosthetic heart valve member 120. However, it is not
necessary that Carey explicitly disclose that the transducers
124 and 126 will impart vibratory energy to valve member 120.
Instead, it is sufficient that Carey’s transducers are
inherently capable of performing in the manner claimed. See In
re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215, 210 USPQ 609, 611 (CCPA 1981),
In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664, 169 USPQ 563, 566 (CCPA 1971)
and In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959, 177 USPQ 705, 706 (CCPA
1973).
In the present case, claim 1 does not require the valve
to actually be vibrated by the vibratory energy. Instead, this
claim merely requires that vibratory energy be applied to the
valve. In Carey’s apparatus, it is reasonable to believe that
the ultrasonic vibrations produced by transducers 124 and 126
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007