Appeal No. 2000-0897
Application No. 08/570,373
al. teach when each is read as a whole, there is
simply no suggestion that the tissue could be
located anyplace other than positioned to the inside
of the rail, as shown in each reference, and
extending longitudinally “to but not around the
support rail” as shown by Wain.
Of critical importance in this appeal is the meaning of
the words “directly underneath” found in the last line of
claim 1. It is well settled that during examination
proceedings, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation, and that limitations are not to be read into
them from the specification. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367,
1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000), In re Van Geuns,
988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applying these principles to the present case, we conclude
that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
limitation calling for the biological valve member to extend
“directly underneath” the support wire is that at least a
portion of the valve member lies adjacent to and below the
support wire. We do not view this claim language as requiring
(1) that the valve member is the only valve element located
under the support rail, or (2) that the valve member is
centered on the support rail, and/or (3) that a portion of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007