Appeal No. 2003-1725
Application No. 09/357,645 Page 4
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of
appellants’ specification and the prior art, sets out and
circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree
of precision and particularity. See In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232,
1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
Preambles
The examiner maintains that “[t}he preambles of the claims
do not appear to be commensurate in scope with the body of the
claims” (answer, page 3). This is so since the preambles are
directed to an occluder or method of occluding whereas the bodies
include recitations directed to elements, such as a pumping
cartridge or pump drive system, that are not considered part of
an occluder or method of occluding from the perspective of the
examiner.
We disagree with those assertions of the examiner. Of the
27 claims subjected to this ground of rejection as reproduced in
appendix A of the supplemental brief, we have identified
dependent claim 16 as the only claim that recites a pumping
cartridge. None of the appealed claims calls for a pump drive
system. On that basis alone, the examiner has not even
specifically identified any problem with, let alone carried the
burden of establishing the indefiniteness of, any of appealed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007