Appeal 2007-2413
Application 10/041,117
In order for a prior art reference to serve as an anticipatory reference,
it must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432
(Fed. Cir. 1997). We agree with the Examiner that Rhodes teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1, and the rejection is affirmed.
Appellants argue that “[i]n claim 1, the first prosthesis comprises a
self-expanding lattice covered by graft material. In Rhodes, stents are only
utilized on the ends of the sleeves and not throughout the entire length of the
component.” (Br. 4) Thus, according to Appellants, that is one difference
between the system of claim 1 and the system disclosed by Rhodes, thus
Rhodes cannot anticipate the claimed invention (id.).
Appellants’ arguments are not convincing. Claim 1 requires “a first
prosthesis, defining a single flow channel conduit, having a proximal end
and a distal end, including a self-expanding lattice and graft material
covering at least a portion of the self-expanding lattice.” (Claim 1 (emphasis
added).) Rhodes teaches a first prosthesis having stent and graft material
,i.e., a self-expanding lattice and graft material covering at least a portion of
the self-expanding lattice, at the end of the first prosthesis (20A), to anchor
the system to the vessel (Rhodes col. 8 ll. 24-65). The transition phrase
“including” is synonymous with the transition phrase “comprising,” and
does not exclude other elements, such as the portions of the first prosthesis
of Rhodes not having a stent. Thus, claim 1 does not require that the stent
be utilized the entire length of the first prosthesis, and thus the system of
Rhodes meets all of the limitations of claim 1.
Appellants argue further, citing Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo
Electric U.S.A., 868 F.2d 1251, 9 USPQ2d 1962 (Fed. Cir. 1989) and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013