Appeal No. 2005-0943
Application No. 09/947,943
The examiner counters that the “single” balloon limitation
is met by either of Sarosiek’s balloons 30 and 32. In this
regard, the examiner notes that claim 1 is an open-ended
“comprising” claim which does not exclude additional unrecited
elements such as the extra Sarosiek balloon. The examiner
further submits that
Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary
(copyright 1984) defines “single” as separate from
others: distinct. The Examiner has interpreted the
claim language in the broadest reasonable
interpretation with the support of the Dictionary for
the term single. Applicant’s claim language does not
structurally distinguish over the Sarosiek et al.
reference. Each of the two balloon[s] of Sarosiek et
al. are considered to be single and separate from each
other [answer, pages 4 and 5].
As correctly pointed out by the examiner, claim 1 does
include the open-ended transition phrase “comprising.” In
general, claims employing this phrase have a scope which covers
devices that employ additional, unrecited elements. AFG
Industries Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 239 F.3d 1239, 1245, 57
USPQ2d 1776, 1780-81 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Hence, the open-ended
nature of claim 1 does not, in and of itself, exclude a catheter
having more than one balloon.
Due weight must be given, however, to the unequivocal
recitation in claim 1 that the catheter comprises a “single”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007