Appeal 2006-0959
Application 10/075,914
reinforcement to prevent collapse.
Our review of the specification uncovers no disclaimer or disavowal of the
ordinary and customary meaning of the term “patency.” In fact, the use of
the term in Appellant’s specification is consistent with the ordinary and
customary meaning. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671,
1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(“An inventor may choose to be his own lexicographer
if he defines the specific terms used to describe the invention ‘with
reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.’”). Our reviewing court
counsels us that the PTO should avoid the temptation to limit broad claim
terms solely on the basis of specification passages and tells us that, absent
claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should only limit the
claim based on the specification when those sources expressly disclaim the
broader definition. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324-25, 72 USPQ2d 1209,
1210-11 (Fed. Cir. 2004). During prosecution, Appellant is free to amend
the claims to include language carrying a narrower meaning. “As an initial
matter, the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest
reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by
the written description contained in the applicant's specification.” In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1026-1028 (Fed. Cir.
1997). We, therefore, determine that “maintaining patency” encompasses
maintaining the stent open, expanded, and unblocked by any method
including by preventing endothelial cell growth or accumulation of debris in
the lumen. Ragheb discloses that blockages due to restenosis and occlusion
occur due to the stent implantation as further found by the Examiner
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007