Appeal No. 97-2551
Application 08/249,821
Column 5, lines 3-6). Each of the outer catheters (50, 78)
has an inner surface. As the inner catheter 18 is slidably
received in the first outer catheter 50 and the first outer
catheter is slidably received in the second outer catheter 78,
the inner surface of the first outer catheter 50 is capable of
receiving a first end portion of the self-expanding
endoprosthesis. Likewise, the inner surface of the second
outer catheter 78 is capable of receiving a second end portion
of the endoprosthesis.
Appellants argue that Garza does not disclose a
second outer catheter. We simply do not agree and find that
Garza clearly discloses a second outer catheter 78. Appellant
also argues that the endoprosthesis are clearly shown
configured within the single outer catheter 50. We are not
persuaded by this argument because the law of anticipation
does not require that the reference teach what the appellant
is claiming, but only that the claims on appeal “read-on”
something disclosed in the reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-
Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984)). In our view, the
device disclosed by Garza is capable of disposing the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007