Appeal 2006-3416
Application 10/884,751
claimed.’” Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 1479, 45
USPQ2d 1498, 1503 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citing In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012,
10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). “An applicant is entitled to claims as
broad as the prior art and his disclosure will allow.” In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d
1212, 1214, 211 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981) (emphasis added).
The Specification discloses only devices having first and second flanges on
either end to trap the wall of the target vessel between the flanges so as to secure
the graft vessel to the target vessel (Specification 8:22-24, 9:15-17, 10:4-5, 11:17-
20, 11:23, 12:25-27, 13:2-4, 14:3-6, 15:26-27, 17:17-19, and 19:15-19) whereas
claims 3, 11-13, and 17-19 do not limit the device to having two flanges. In
particular, independent claim 11 is written in open-ended fashion using the
transitional term “comprising” and recites only a first flange connected to the distal
end of the central region, which means that claim 11 is broad enough to encompass
a device having only a single flange. Similarly, dependent claims 3, 12, 13, and
17-19 do not add a limitation of a second flange. As such, these claims read on
embodiments outside the scope of the written description. We fail to see why
persons skilled in the art would recognize in the disclosure a description of the
invention having only a single flange.
While a description of the invention which is narrower than the subject
matter encompassed by the claims will not always result in a failure to fulfill the
written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, see Bilstad v.
Wakalopulos, 386 F.3d 1116, 1124, 72 USPQ2d 1785, 1791 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(applying the general rule that disclosure of a species may be sufficient written
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013