Appeal No. 2003-1502 Page 4
Application No. 09/365,860
appellant argues that this is an erroneous conclusion in view of the common definition
of “winding” as well as the explanation of the invention in the specification.
There appears to be no dispute that a “winding” is a turn of wire or rope wound
around an object, a spiral, for the appellant has so asserted on page 13 of the
specification and the examiner has offered such a definition on page 7 of the Answer.
The appellant’s specification explains the construction of the clamping rings in a
manner that conforms with this definition, for it describes them as being formed by
“wrapping a single length of wire around the mandrel” to form a number of coils (page
7). Based upon this evidence, it is our opinion that the designation of a wire as a
“winding” in the present case would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art to
be a structural limitation requiring that the annular wire ring be formed by winding a wire
in a spiral manner about an object such as a core. In this regard, the appellant argues
that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a winding does not include a closed ring,
which is what he believes is disclosed in Inoue ‘179.
Inoue ‘179 discloses a collapsible prosthesis having, as shown in Figure 36, to
which the examiner refers, an “end wire ring” W1 comprising four wire elements W2
bound together. Neither the manner in which the wire elements are manufactured nor
details of their construction are explained, other than to state that they preferably are
made of nickel-titanium alloy and have sufficient flexibility and strength so there is little
danger of them injuring the blood vessel into which the prosthesis is inserted (column
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007