Appeal No. 1999-0117
Application 08/702,948
skill in the art would understand the presently claimed distal
end configurations #3 and #4 as being “reasonable variations” of
the Figures 6 and 7 embodiments, notwithstanding that they are
not disclosed in the original disclosure. In the absence of some
more convincing line of reasoning or evidence in support of this
position, we decline to do so.
On page 8 of the request, appellant maintains that “[t]he
Board apparently did not recognize appellant’s the [sic] claim-6
limitation that is at issue in this appeal as being a means-plus-
function limitation.” The parts of claims 6 and 15 that describe
the shape of the distal end of the implant do not invoke the
sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 because they do not use the
word “means” in association with any function of the distal end.
Accordingly, appellant’s view that the parts of claims 6 and 15
that describe the shape of the distal end of the implant can
somehow be interpreted as being means-plus-function limitations
is not well taken.
Concerning the helical channel “closed end” limitation added
to claim 6 during prosecution, we stand by our determination that
this limitation is not inherently disclosed in the original
disclosure of the present application. Where, as here, the
channel could be configured to have ends that are either both
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007