Appeal 2006-3287
Application 10/022,996
analogous art. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358, 49 USPQ2d 1464,
1467 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d
1576, 1584, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1578-79 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (noting that prior
art references may be indicative of what all those skilled in the art generally
believe a certain term means and can often help to demonstrate how a
disputed term is used by those skilled in the art).
In SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., the
Court addressed the issue of whether patent claims were limited to a coaxial
lumen configuration or whether they were broad enough to also encompass a
side by side lumen configuration. 242 F.3d 1337, 58 USPQ2d 1059 (Fed.
Cir. 2001)3. The Court’s opinion in SciMed includes the following findings
of fact relating to balloon catheter technology:
The parties agree that only two arrangements of the two
lumens are known and practiced in the art. In the dual (or
adjacent) lumen configuration, the two lumens are positioned
side-by-side within the catheter. In the coaxial lumen
configuration, the guide wire lumen runs inside the inflation
lumen; in that configuration the inflation lumen, viewed in
cross-section, is annular in shape.
242 F.3d at 1339, 58 USPQ2d at 1061. Upon review of the SciMed patent
specification, the Court concluded that “the written description makes clear
that when the asserted claims refer to the respective locations of the guide
wire and inflation lumens, and in particular when the claims refer to the
inflation lumen as ‘extending through the catheter separate from’ the guide
wire lumen, the claim language refers to coaxial lumens.” 242 F.3d at 1344-
3 Although SciMed was a patent infringement case, it is instructive on claim
interpretation.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013