Appeal 2007-0845
Application 10/268,135
of claimed elements in the prior art. Mraz, 455 F.2d at 1072, 173 USPQ at
27.
Moreover, it is well settled that “claims in an application are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification and that claim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.”
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
(citation omitted).
We agree with the Examiner that Jang describes a catheter having a
slit extending proximally from an edge of a guide wire lumen channel,
creating a substantially angled tip where the slit meets the channel.
Figures 3, 5, 6, 14, and 15 of Jang disclose a catheter having an
elongated aperture 34 that opens the catheter’s guide wire lumen to the
exterior. Figures 17 through 20 designate the aperture as item 234. In our
view, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the term
“slit” to encompass the elongated aperture.
In Figure 3, for example, the elongated aperture extends from a distal
end terminating at the guide wire lumen wall, to a proximal end that
terminates at the angled structure that extends into the aperture. Thus, the
aperture, or slit, extends proximally from an edge of the guide wire lumen
channel, as required by claim 1.
Figure 3 shows that the angled portion of the catheter in the aperture
34 is part of the same structure as the guide wire lumen wall 30, and is
therefore contiguous with the lumen wall. The angled portion of the wall is
depicted as having a tip.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013