Appeal 2007-0845
Application 10/268,135
with one another, it is unclear whether the angled structure is bent as shown
in Fig. 3 only when stressed (e.g., by a guide wire inserted through the side
port 34)” (id.).
The Examiner urges that it is clear from viewing Figure 5 that “Jang
does disclose these limitations. Jang teaches a catheter (10) having a slit
(34) extending from an edge of channel (20), creating an angled tip (as seen
by the bent in portion of the catheter at slit 34) formed of the catheter wall”
(Answer 4). As to whether the angled portion of the catheter is bent only
when stressed, the Examiner points out that “Applicant does not positively
recite that the angled structure of the Applicant's invention is permanently
angled” (id.).
Appellants respond that, in Figure 3, “[t]he side port 34 does not
contact either the proximal opening 32 or the distal end 16 (i.e., the edges of
the guidewire lumen 20), and thus never extends proximally from an edge of
the guidewire lumen 20” (Reply Br. 3). Thus, Appellants argue,
using the Examiner's definitions, Jang neither discloses nor
suggests “a guide wire ramp formed of a portion of a wall of the
catheter separated from an adjacent portion of the catheter wall
by a slit extending proximally from an edge of the channel to
create a substantially angled tip at a point at which the slit
meets the channel,” as recited in claim 1.
(Id.)
“Description for the purposes of anticipation can be by drawings alone
as well as by words.” In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072, 173 USPQ 25, 27
(CCPA 1972) (quoting In re Bager, 47 F.2d 951, 953, 8 USPQ 484, 486
(CCPA 1931)). Thus, “the teachings of patent drawings, even as to features
unexplained by the specification,” may be used to demonstrate the presence
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013