Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
08/684,508 are connected to the anchor section by way of a
fiber fabric liner, as Cragg apparently indicates, that does
not mean the first and the second legs are not joined to the
anchor section.
Cragg argues that the tubular liner means cannot also be the
means for joining because if it is then that would render
meaningless the tubular liner means element of claim 62. The
argument is without merit, because the recitation of a tubular
liner means in claim 62 further specifies that the liner
structure defines a continuous flow path from the anchor
section to the first leg and an opening disposed toward the
second branch lumen. We note further that nothing precludes
the same disclosed physical element from being the
corresponding structure of two or more means-plus-function
elements in a claim, provided that the structure performs the
recited functions of those means-plus-function clauses.
4. Fogarty’s argument that notwithstanding any
35 U.S.C. § 135(b) bar relative to patentee
Martin, Fogarty is not precluded from having
an interference with Cragg is without merit
Fogarty points out that in related Interference No.
104,083 involving only Martin and Cragg, specifically Cragg
claim 89 and Martin claim 1, judgment has been entered against
- 57 -
Page: Previous 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007