Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
pieces don’t have to be connected to each other before
properly being referred to as portions of the same puzzle.
Cragg has not made any meaningful showing that the word
“portion” as is ordinarily used in the English language
requires an actual physical attachment. Nor has Cragg argued
that its specification has specially defined the word
“portion” in a manner different from its ordinary usage in the
English language. Indeed, Cragg even cites to Merriam
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10 Ed. (1994) in its briefth
at final hearing for the meaning of “portion,” which states:
“part of something.” Note that “part of something” can be
conceptual and does not necessarily require a physical
connection at all times. Moreover, we note that even Cragg’s
so called “portions” are not physically connected at all
times; indisputably, they have to be preassembled prior to
introduction into the patient.
Alternatively, our decision on preliminary motion held
that even assuming that the “unitary” feature argued by Cragg
is included in all of Cragg’s claims corresponding to the
count, Fogarty’s claim 41 still would have rendered obvious
Cragg’s claimed invention such as Cragg’s claim 59.
Cragg argues (Br. at 18):
- 86 -
Page: Previous 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007