Appeal 2007-2331
Application 10/123,883
fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this
way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible,
during the administrative process.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
We acknowledge that the Specification teaches that a stent that is
tapered as a result of incomplete expansion has an increased risk of acute
thrombosis (Specification 13), but that appears to be only a non-preferred
embodiment, and not outside the scope of the claimed invention. We
decline to read limitations from the Specification into the claims, a practice
that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, our reviewing court,
cautions against. See SuperGuideCorp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc.,
358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868-69 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though
understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in
the written description, it is important not to import into the claim limitations
that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment in the
written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is
broader than the embodiment.”).
CONCLUSION
In summary, we conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima
facie case of obviousness, and the rejection of claims 24-31 and 41 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Alt and Savin
is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013