Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
anchored between the leg and the first branch
artery; and (3) the second tubular graft is then
inserted into the second connector section and
anchored between the described second connector and
the second branch artery. See Fogarty Application
at Page 6, lines 1-9. (Emphasis in original).
The decision on preliminary motions rejected Cragg’s
argument, stating (Paper No. 108, p. 10):
We reject Goicoechea’s [Cragg’s] argument
because we do not read or interpret the above-quoted
language of claim 41 as requiring that the anchor
section and the first tubular graft be introduced
“in a single step” or simulataneously. The words
“in a single step” do not appear in claim 41, nor do
the words “simulataneously,” “concurrently,”
“unison,” or any other term which means the same.
The language is simply broadly recited and imposes
no particular order for the insertion of the anchor
section and the first tubular graft.
In its principal brief at final hearing, Cragg does not
continue to argue that Fogarty’s claim 41 requires that the
anchor section and the first tubular graft be introduced in a
single step or simultaneously. Rather, a new argument is made
through the back door that the claim is so broad that the full
scope of what is claimed is not described in the
specification. Specifically, on page 20 of its brief, in a
section entitled “CRAGG MOTION 1 SHOULD BE GRANTED,” Cragg
states:
If the Board adheres to its broad construction of
claim 41 [that no specific sequence of introduction
- 65 -
Page: Previous 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007