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.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007