Appeal No. 1996-3547 Page 8
Application No. 08/089,854
Based on the present record, it is our view that the claimed
prosthetic device shape encompasses the prosthetic device shapes
as disclosed in Jones. In this regard, we note that during
patent examination the Patent and Trademark Office gives the
language of the claims the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification and the prior art. See, e.g.,
In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1151, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1700 (Fed. Cir.
1995). Here, the specification on page 16 indicates that:
The shape of the prosthetic devices may vary
considerably, depending upon the particular
application. Examples of shapes include, but are not
limited to, films, woven and nonwoven sheets, plates,
screws, filaments for wrapping injured or fragmented
bones, staples, "K" wire, and spinal cages.
Moreover, a wide variety of applications are encompassed by
the claims as evidenced by the exemplary non-exclusive list of
applications furnished in the specification (carryover paragraph,
pages 15 and 16) and as variously recited in some of the appealed
claims. Thus, we determine that the claimed functional
limitation "suitable for placing the prosthetic device in contact
with bone for binding to bone" (claims 68, 70 and 106)
encompasses any shape device capable of being placed in contact
with bone. Jones clearly teaches such a prosthetic device. In
this regard, we note that the prosthetic devices of Jones are
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007