Appeal 2007-0845
Application 10/268,135
220, but is adapted to discourage a guidewire passing through
the side port 234 from extending proximally through the
guidewire lumen 220 from the side port 234.
(Jang, col. 14, l. 66, to col. 15, l. 7, emphasis added.)
Appellants argue that this passage demonstrates only that “the side
port 234 is configured to prevent, during insertion of a guidewire into the
guidewire lumen 220, a distal tip of the guidewire from being routed
proximally through the guidewire lumen 220” (Reply Br. 3).
We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive. In our view, claim 1
is broad enough to encompass the side port described by Jang. Claim 1
requires the ramp “to permit a guide wire to pass therethrough in a first
direction and to force out of the channel a guide wire traveling through the
channel portion in a second direction opposite the first direction.” As
pointed out by the Examiner, Jang explicitly states that the side port 234 “is
adapted to discourage a guidewire passing through the side port . . . from
extending proximally through the guidewire lumen . . . from the side port”
(Jang, col. 15, ll. 4-7).
Thus, Jang’s side port 234 is configured such that a guide wire
inserted into the port may pass into the guide wire lumen in a distal
direction, but cannot move into the lumen in the opposite, proximal
direction. Because Jang’s side port discourages passage of a guide wire in a
proximal direction, Jang’s side port in effect forces the guide wire out of the
guide wire lumen channel, which is all that claim 1 requires. Because Jang
describes this configuration of the side port explicitly (Jang col. 14, l. 66,
through col. 15, l. 8), we do not agree with Appellants that this conclusion is
speculative.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013