Appeal 2007-2557
Application 10/094,866
components,” i.e., the connector, to do so. (Col. 5, ll. 64-66 (emphasis
added); see also col. 7, ll. 8-12 (“the structure of the connecting segment
itself” can be “varied to alter flexibility of the stent”).)
14. Dinh’s Figures 4A and 6D at least would have suggested varying
the width of certain portions of the interconnecting bridge to provide
additional flexibility; and Figure 4A, when viewed with Figure 4B, would
have suggested doing so at two points in the bridge in that narrowed bend
134 in Figure 4A corresponds to two bends in Figure 4B (138 and an
unnumbered bend). (See FIGS. 4A, 4B & 6D.)
15. Based on the teachings of Hojeibane or Dinh, the skilled artisan
seeking more flexibility in a stent would have known to decrease the width
of Ley’s interconnecting bridges in “a plurality” of locations to obtain such
flexibility and would have had a reasonable expectation of obtaining such
increased flexibility by doing so.
Other Findings
16. The scope and content of the prior art and the level of skill in the
art are reflected in the cited prior art, all relating to improving stent design.
17. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity,
not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82
USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
During examination proceedings,
claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification. See In re Graves, 69 F.3d
1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed.Cir.1995); In re
Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed.Cir.1985) (en
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013