Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
or “one-piece.” Thus, what Cragg is arguing in this part is
many steps removed from the actual language of the claims.
The bifurcated prosthesis according to Cragg’s claim 59
requires (1) a proximal portion, (2) a distal portion, and (3)
a separate distal segment. Unlike Cragg’s claim 55, Cragg’s
claim 59 does not require disposing the proximal portion in
the blood vessel such that the distal portion extends into a
first branched vessel. That means claim 59 is sufficiently
broad to have the proximal portion put in place without regard
to whether the distal portion is also placed in working
position.
Cragg argues that because the word “portion” means part
of a whole, the proximal portion and the distal portion must
be part of a unitary structure in which the proximal portion
and the distal portion is unitary or connected together by
some securing means before being introduced into the blood
vessel. We are not persuaded by Cragg’s argument.
While the word “portion” may indeed mean part of a whole
or part of something, Cragg has not submitted any evidence
that the so called parts of a whole must be physically
attached to each other at all times. In that regard, note
that a jig-saw puzzle has many parts or portions but the many
- 85 -
Page: Previous 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007