Appeal No. 1998-2095
Application No. 08/460,311
intended to contact the bifurcation and that Barone shows, in
Figure 4, a vascular graft contacting the bifurcation (Answer,
pages 7 and 8).
We do not agree. Appellant’s Figure 11 illustrates a
preferred embodiment of an intraluminal vascular graft for
repairing bifurcated vessels. With regard to this particular
embodiment, page 24 of the specification informs us that when
the
vascular graft 20 is deployed in a bifurcating vessel, “the
expandible caudal ring 35 is seated upon and supported by the
bifurcation of the vessel, otherwise referred to as the crotch
98 of the bifurcation.” Thus, based on the underlying
specifi-cation, we understand the claim language referred to
by the examiner as being unclear, unambiguous and as actually
requiring that the circumferential support structure, not the
vascular graft, be capable of being positioned to contact and
span the bifurcation. Furthermore, this interpretation is
consistent with the step of “supporting said intraluminal
vascular graft structure within said bifurcated vessel, by
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007