Ex parte AVITALL - Page 5

          Appeal No. 1998-1045                                                        
          Application 08/482,674                                                      

          re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967),              
          cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).  Our reviewing court has                
          repeatedly cautioned against employing hindsight by using the               
          appellant's disclosure as a blueprint to reconstruct the                    
          claimed invention from the isolated teachings of the prior                  
          art.  See, e.g., Grain Processing Corp. v. American                         
          Maize-Products Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907, 5 USPQ2d 1788, 1792                  
          (Fed. Cir. 1988).                                                           
               Claim 38 recites a catheter tip control system comprising              
          a catheter having a highly flexible, tubular distal catheter                
          section extending from a main catheter tube and having a                    
          central axis, a catheter wall and describing a distal catheter              
          lumen and having a flexible distal tip area to be precisely                 
          maneuvered independent of the main catheter; a lateral                      
          deflection control element for angularly displacing “said                   
          distal tip"  (claim 38, line 9) about the central axis2                                                                
          threaded within the distal catheter lumen and having a distal               

               Technically, there is no antecedent basis for the language “the2                                                                     
          distal tip” and “said distal tip” in claims 38, 39, 40 and 44.  For purposes
          of our review, we consider the quoted language to read --the distal tip area--
          and --said distal tip area--, respectively, as actually recited in claim 38,
          lines 5 and 6.  Correction of these informalities is in order upon return of
          the application to the jurisdiction of the examiner.                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007