Appeal No. 2003-1513
Application No. 09/326,412
“preventing means [] for preventing the expandable envelope from
folding over on itself during placement or implantation of the
tissue expander into a patient” as recited in appealed claim 19.
Because the “preventing means” is modified by function rather
than structure, means-plus-function claim interpretation
principles as provided under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6 (2002) apply.
Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton-Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17,
27, 41 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (1997).
In describing the recited function for a preferred
embodiment, the specification explains that the base of the
expander (i.e., the posterior portion of the expander) is
“thicker or reinforced” relative to the anterior portion of the
expander. (Page 4, lines 5-18; page 11, lines 12-16.) Given
this description, we construe “preventing means [] for
preventing the expandable envelope from folding over on itself
during placement or implantation of the tissue expander into a
patient” to encompass, or read on, a base that is “thicker or
reinforced” relative to an anterior portion of the expander.
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1
In the Aug. 19, 2002 Office action (page 3), the examiner
held:
confine our discussion of the §103 rejection to claim 19. 37
CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1995).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007