Appeal No. 2000-0583
Application No. 08/955,984
product and not to the process used to obtain that product.
The patentability of a product does not depend on its method
of production. If the product in a product-by-process claim
is the same as or not patentably distinct from a product of
the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior
art product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe,
777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In addition to reciting the steps used to obtain the
balloon, claim 1 also includes the clause “thereby increasing
the strength of the balloon relative to a reference balloon
prepared in the same manner, except for said drying step.”
The terms “strength” and “manner” used in this clause lack4 5
antecedent basis in the claim and are not expressly defined in
appellants’ specification.
In proceedings before it, the PTO applies to the verbiage
of claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in
Appellants' specification states on page 2 that high tensile strengths4
are important in angioplasty balloons because they allow for the use of high
pressure in a balloon having a relatively small wall thickness. However, the
specification does not expressly define "strength" as being tensile strength
or burst strength.
The term "manner" appears on pages 13 and 14 of appellants'5
specification but is not expressly defined.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007