Appeal No. 1997-0975 Page 5
Application No. 08/389,303
collagenous body tissue (column 2, lines 1-49; column 3, line 36
to column 4, line 39; and Examples 1-11).2
Therefore, the question before us is whether bonding the
prosthetic device to collagenous body tissue, as taught by Jones,
is encompassed by the claimed implanting step. We answer this
question in the affirmative.
In proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, an
application claim is to be given its broadest reasonable
interpretation which is consistent with the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Here, the specification (pages 15 and 16) states that:
Examples of prosthetic devices which may be formed from
the polymers of the present invention include, but are
not limited to, ... artificial palates; typanic and
sinus ventilation tubes; ... ear canal walls; and
closures of the nasal septum; ... preformed noses; ...
peridontal ligament replacements; ... artificial
ligaments; interstitial cartilage repair or
replacement; anchor elements for ligament repair; ...
cartilage sheets; tubes to direct nerve growth....
2 Appellants also admit that the claimed prosthetic device
polymer materials are known (brief, page 4). Moreover, appellants
do not specifically dispute that the prosthetic device components
as described in claim 54 encompasses the prosthetic device
components of Jones. In this regard, we note that appellants
acknowledge that the copolymers of Jones are useful in their
process (specification, page 8).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007