Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
specification.
Fogarty’s claims 42-69 depend either directly or indirectly
from claim 41. Cragg’s preliminary motion 1 (Paper No. 39,
pp. 6-7) specifically identified the following feature of
Fogarty’s method claim 41 as that which is without written
description:
[I]ntroducing into a patient’s vasculature an anchor
section and first tubular graft of the vascular
graft so that the anchor section is disposed within
the primary artery and the first tubular graft is
disposed within the first branch artery to form a
first continuous flow path from the primary artery
to the first branch artery.
According to Cragg’s preliminary motion 1, the above-quoted
feature of Fogarty’s method claim 41 requires the anchor
section and the first tubular graft to be introduced in a
single step, not sequentially as is disclosed in Fogarty’s
specification. We reproduce the following paragraph from page
10 of Cragg’s preliminary motion 1, which clearly reveals
Cragg’s position:
The Fogarty Application fails to suggest introducing
an anchor section and first tubular graft in a
single step. Instead, the Fogarty Application
teaches (1) first introducing the bifurcated base
structure so that the anchor section is positioned
within a primary vessel; (2) after the bifurcated
base structure is anchored, the first tubular graft
is introduced into the first connector leg and
- 64 -
Page: Previous 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007