Appeal No. 2000-0472
Application No. 08/868,536
placement of the catheter into a desired place in a blood
vessel," as recited in claim 7. Although the stylet 28 shown
in Groshong's Figs. 1 and 3 is straight rather than bent, the
examiner proposes, on pages 5 to 7 of the examiner's answer,
three different interpretations of the quoted claim language
whereby that language may be read on Groshong: (1) the stylet
will bend when in use, since Groshong discloses at col. 2,
lines 64 to 67, that the stylet (stiffener) "is of such
flexibility that it can bend to conform to the bends of the
body vessel or vessels in which the catheter is inserted"; (2)
the twisted wire of which Groshong's stylet is made is bent as
it is twisted, and each bend is offset from the next; (3) the
bends 34, 38 at the proximal end of Groshong's stylet are
adjacent the distal end since "adjacent" is a relative term
and appellants have made no showing of criticality for the
adjacency.1
On pages 3 to 5 of the reply brief, appellants present
1The question of "criticality" relates to obviousness
under § 103(a) rather than anticipation under § 102(b), since
it concerns the question of whether a difference between the
claimed subject matter and the prior art is critical. See In
re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1577-78, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37
(Fed. Cir. 1990).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007