Interference No. 104,190
for shearing tissue therebetween. Nonetheless, the
description of the prior art that refers to the portion of the
blade that extends back past the pivot point to the means for
imparting movement as the portion of the blade which supports
the other laminated layers is some evidence that the senior
party’s interpretation of the claim, and the count that
corresponds exactly thereto, is the construction in agreement
with the disclosure. Additionally, when the Parins patent
discusses the prior art Rydell patent No. 5,356,408 similar
language, i.e., “honed ceramic cutting and shearing surfaces
on the opposed interior surfaces of metal blade support
members” is used. Id. Thus, the specification of the Parins
involved patent provides some evidence that the senior party’s
construction of the count is proper in this instance.
The prosecution history is more probative. As noted
above, we may also “consider the patent's prosecution history,
if it is in evidence." Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
52 F.3d 967, 980, 34 USPQ2d 1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (in
banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370, 116 S. Ct. 1384, 1393, 38 USPQ2d
1461 (1996); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 33, 148
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007