Appeal 2007-1197
Application 10/674,729
encompass metallic strands of many lengths and diameters, and would
encompass the flat ribbon of Evans.
Appellant would have us interpret the term "wire" in view of the
Specification, paragraphs 28 and 29, as having a cross-sectional diameter
within the range of 0.01 to 0.5 mms, and as show in Fig 2. (Br. 6.)
Nothing in the Specification compels us to interpret the term "wire" so
narrowly. Moreover, during ex parte prosecution, claims are to be given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the description of the
invention in the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
In view of the above, we conclude that the term "wire" in claim 31
encompasses flat ribbon disclosed in Evans, and thus Evans anticipates the
pending claims.
2. Anticipation by Chuter
Claims 31, 32, 40, 41, and 43-46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) for anticipation over Chuter.
The Examiner contends that
Chuter teaches a stent insertable into the body
passageway, including:
a flexible self-expanding braided tubular wall comprising
at least one first wire 10 helically wound at a first pitch and at
least one second wire 10 helically wound at a second pitch
different from the first pitch whereby the first and second wires
cooperate to form multiple crossing points of the at least one
first wire and the at least one second wire;
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013