Appeal 2007-1197
Application 10/674,729
Appellant contends that Chuter does not teach a substantially
constant first pitch and a substantially constant second pitch because
the pitch of Chuter is not "constant over the entire length of the stent."
(Br. 9-10).
We agree with the Examiner that claim 31 does not require a
substantially constant pitch "over the entire length of the stent."
Furthermore, Appellant's Specification, Figures 1, 3, 6, and 7 depict
elevations over only a portion of the stent which have a different pitch from
the non-elevated portions of the stent. Therefore, according to Appellant's
own Specification, the different pitches present in the stent are not "over the
entire length of the stent."
Appellant would have us read the term "substantially" in the instant
application as a "term of approximation." (Br. 9.) We do not find
Appellant’s interpretation of the term "substantially", inconsistent with the
Examiner's interpretation of claim 31. In sum, we find that claim 31 does
not require "a constant pitch over the entire length of the stent" and thus we
find the stent of Chuter, particularly the stent having limbs of Fig. 1 (col. 3,
ll. 40-45), meets the limitations of claim 31. The rejection of the claims for
anticipation over Chuter is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013