Appeal 2007-0845
Application 10/268,135
We note that Jang’s drawings depict a gap between the angled
structure and an inner surface of the wall 30. However, “it is well
established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the
elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the
specification is completely silent on the issue.” Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc.
v. Avia Group Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed.
Cir. 2000); In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127, 193 USPQ 332, 335 (CCPA
1977) (“Absent any written description in the specification of quantitative
values, arguments based on measurement of a drawing are of little value.”).
Appellants do not point to, and we do not see, any portion of Jang
describing precise proportions of the aperture and angled section of the
catheter, such that one of ordinary skill would conclude that the gap depicted
in the drawings would permit passage of a guide wire in both directions
along the guide wire lumen. Rather, as discussed supra, Jang explicitly
states that the side port is configured to permit passage of a guide wire in a
distal direction from the side port 234, but not a proximal direction.
We also note that several of Jang’s drawings, for example Figure 3,
depict a guide wire passing underneath the angled tip structure. However, as
discussed supra, the instant Specification discloses a guide wire exchange
procedure that “deflects the ramp 62 radially outward to allow the guide
wire 36 to pass thereunder” (Specification 9) (emphasis added).
Thus, the fact that a guide wire may pass underneath Jang’s ramp
when deployed in a distal direction does not necessarily mean that the ramp
will fail to force a guide wire out of the guide wire lumen when the wire is
passed in a proximal direction. This conclusion is consistent with Jang’s
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013