Appeal 2006-3416
Application 10/884,751
anastomosis device to secure the graft vessel to the target vessel. Accordingly, we
find that the second flange is an essential element of the Appellants’ invention. In
the balance of interests, i.e., the balance of the public interest to protect against
overly broad claims and the Appellants’ interest to obtain a patent based on the
disclosed invention, we come down on the side of the public interest, because the
Appellants’ disclosure is narrow and the second flange is an essential element to
the claimed anastomosis device. Accordingly, we enter this new ground of
rejection of claims 3, 11-13, and 17-19 in an effort to prevent the Appellants from
claiming more than what they described in their narrow disclosure to be their
invention.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 3, 11-14, 17, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
by Furst and erred in rejecting claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Furst.
We further conclude that claim 3 is indefinite for failing to particularly point
out and distinctly claim the subject matter the Appellants regard as their invention,
and the Specification lacks an adequate written description to support claims 3, 11-
13, and 17-19.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013