Appeal 2007-2496
Application 10/096,299
devices and methods for reducing the ventricular volume of the
heart.
(Specification 31-32.)
Thus, we interpret “a preshaped expandable member having a shape
which, when installed and inflated in the ventricular chamber, together with
the ventricular chamber more closely approximates the ventricular geometry
of a healthy heart compared to the ventricular chamber prior to installing and
inflating said preshaped expandable member therein” as an implant that
reduces the ventricular volume of the heart.
Appellants argue that “since the inner walls of a ventricular chamber
are concave, that a shape of an expandable member that accomplishes a
closer approximation of the ventricular geometry of a healthy heart should
also have a concave surface.” (Reply Br.4 4.) Appellants claim does not
require, however, that the expandable member approximate the geometry of
a healthy heart, however, but a geometry that more closely approximates the
ventricular geometry of a healthy heart compared to the ventricular chamber
prior to installing and inflating said preshaped expandable member. Thus,
what is required by the claim is that after implantation, the geometry more
closely approximates that of a healthy heart than does the geometry of the
diseased heart. That geometry is accomplished by the reduction of
ventricular volume, which results in an overall increase in efficiency of the
heart (Specification 6). That geometry is achieved by the implant of
Deskalakis, as the implant taught by the patent reduces the dead volume in
4 All references to the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) are to the Rep[ly Brief dated
February 23, 2007.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013