Appeal No. 1999-0712 Page 6
Application No. 08/748,669
The appellants do not contest the examiner's position with regard to these proposed
modifications. Rather, the appellants argue (brief, pages 5-10) that, even if the Schatz device
were modified as proposed by the examiner, the radiopaque material coated on the connector
members would be located internally of the whole device 70' and thus between and spaced
from the ends thereof, rather than "at an end of the stent" as required by claim 41. This
argument is based on the appellants' assertion that
[t]here is no logical or rational basis to believe that someone having even
rudimentary skills in the arts of making and implanting stents would consider the
so-called central "graft" 70 shown in Figs. 7 and 8 of the Schatz reference to be,
by itself, a complete and implantable stent, since it has additional implantable
members connected to it. Instead, those skilled in the art would refer only to the
entire graft or prosthesis '70 [sic: 70'] as a stent, and not to its individual
constituents [brief, page 9].
In proceedings before it, the PTO applies to the verbiage of claims the broadest
reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one
of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's
specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Moreover, absent an express definition in their specification, the fact that appellants can point to
definitions or usages that conform to their interpretation does not make the PTO's definition
unreasonable when the PTO can point to other sources that support its interpretation. Id., 127
F.2d at 1056, 44 USPQ2d at 1029.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007