Appeal No. 99-0094
Application 08/482,589
something disclosed in the reference, i.e., that all of the
limitations in the claim be found in or fully met by the
reference. Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772,
218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S.
1026 (1984).
Claim 1 requires the steps of providing a cannula having
a “predetermined outside diameter” which is “substantially
constant along a predetermined position,” sliding a sleeve
onto the cannula to the predetermined position, and cooling
the sleeve to cause its inside diameter to contract to a
diameter smaller than the predetermined outside diameter. As
implied by the examiner’s
analysis (see pages 3 through 6 in the answer), the only way
Zenick can meet these claim limitations is if the claim
language requiring a “predetermined outside diameter” which is
“substantially constant along a predetermined position” can be
read on the predetermined outside diameter defined by Zenick’s
ribs or ridges 3, 86. The appellants’ contention that the
claim language in question cannot be so read (see pages 5 and
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007