Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
explains the subject matter “supposedly” in conflict
as follows:
The invention that is the subject of
this Interference relates to a two-section
apparatus comprising (1) a first section
configured to be positioned within a
bifurcated lumen and (2) a second section
configured to be positioned separately in a
branch of the bifurcated lumen and to
extend into the bifurcated lumen. A first
lower limb of the first section is
configured so that it extends into a first
leg of the bifurcation when the first
section is positioned in the lumen. A
second lower limb of the first section,
which is shorter than the first lower limb,
is configured so that it does not extend
into a second leg of the bifurcation.
Accordingly, the first section defines a
“long-leg, short-leg” concept. Joining two
components (the first and second sections)
completes the apparatus. (Emphasis in
original).
Of all Goicoechea claims which correspond to the
count, claims 55, 59 and 90 are independent claims.
Claim 90 is identical to the count. Claim 55
embodies the “long-leg, short-leg” idea by including
step (a) -- disposing said proximal portion of said
bifurcated prosthesis in said blood vessel such that
said first distal portion of said bifurcated
prosthesis extends into said first branched vessel
[long-leg], and step (c) -- attaching said second
- 75 -
Page: Previous 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007