Appeal No. 97-4119 Page 7
Application No. 08/369,545
Another facet of the appellants’ arguments essentially
urges that “in” in the context of the anatomical tissue should
be interpreted as meaning “within,” that is, in the sense that
it is within the confines of a solid piece of tissue. On this
basis, the appellants conclude that the language of claim 1
does not read on the Sinnreich system. However, the claim
recites merely that the obstructed site is “in” anatomical
material, and therefore in our view is broad enough to include
being simply inside or within the abdominal cavity, in
accordance with the common definition of “in.” The disclosure 2
of the invention does not establish a more limited definition
of “in.” Thus, the insertion of the Sinnreich device through
the abdominal wall so that it is positioned inside the abdomen
meets the terms of the claim.
Since the appellants have chosen to group dependent claims
7, 14, 15, 17 and 40 with claim 1, the rejection of these
claims also is sustained.
We reach the opposite conclusion, however, with regard to
claims 52 and 53, which have been rejected as being anticipated
2See, for example, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary, Tenth Edition, 1996, page 585.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007