Appeal No. 97-1313
Application 07/931,695
Frisbie patent is the seal ring 34 and cap 37 carried by the body 11 at the end of guide catheter 52. As
the examiner indicates in his statement of the rejection, supra, it may be inferred from Frisbie's
disclosure that if balloon catheter 56 were within seal ring 34, tightening cap 37 would prevent
movement of the balloon catheter relative to the guide catheter.
In Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Industries, Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1308,
46 USPQ2d 1752, 1756 (Fed. Cir. 1998), the Court, in considering whether, under § 112, sixth
paragraph, a structure was the equivalent of a structure disclosed in the specification, defined
"equivalent" as something which "results from an insubstantial change which adds nothing of significance
to the structure, material, or arts disclosed in the patent specification" (quoting Valmont Indus., Inc. v.
Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 1043, 25 USPQ2d 1451, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). Applying that
definition in this case, we do not consider that the sealing ring-cap arrangement 34, 37 of Frisbie is the
equivalent of appellants' disclosed stop ring 138. The stop ring is mounted on the captivation catheter
130 and "automatically" prevents the captivation balloon 131 from extending beyond the distal end of
the guide catheter 22 by engaging the guide catheter manifold 56. By contrast, Frisbie's sealing ring and
cap are located on the manifold 11, and although they broadly would be capable of performing the
function of preventing the balloon 57 from extending beyond the end of the guide catheter 52, they
would do so only after the operator had determined by some other means that the balloon had not
extended beyond the distal end of the guide catheter, and then tightened the cap to hold the balloon and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007