Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
9. Claim 2 of Martin’s involved patent depends from
claim 1, and if re-written in independent form it would read
the same as the count in this interference.
10. The count of this interference reads as follows
(Paper No. 16):
An apparatus for reinforcing a bifurcated lumen
comprising:
a first section, configured to be positioned
within the lumen, comprising:
an upper limb, configured to fit within the
lumen upstream of the bifurcation;
a first lower limb, configured to extend into a
first leg of said bifurcation when said first
section is positioned in the lumen, and
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007