Appeal No. 2003-1725
Application No. 09/357,645 Page 6
occlusion method in which an occluder blade has not been
established as being essential by the examiner’s assertions.
Certainly, the recitation of an occluding member in the claims
has not been shown by the examiner to be indefinite. In this
regard, breadth does not equate with indefiniteness. See In re
Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788, 166 USPQ 138, 140 (CCPA 1970).
Consequently, we will not sustain the examiner’s § 112, second
paragraph rejection on the basis of an omitted occluder blade.
Forces
The examiner questions whether the “forces” referred to in
line 5 of claim 1 are forces generated by a recited force
actuator or not. The examiner goes on to question whether the
reference to “a force” in claim 2 and claim 7 represent a partial
double inclusion. The examiner also maintains that “the force”
of claim 7 may refer to more than one of the previously recited
forces and notes that a “bending force” is recited in claim 8.
Based on those various recitations of forces and considering
appellants’ disclosure, the examiner concludes that those “force”
recitations are indefinite. The examiner asserts that
recitations of forces in claims 17-23 are vague and indefinite
for similar reasons.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007