Appeal 2007-2557
Application 10/094,866
DISCUSSION
Based on the above findings and principles of law, we conclude claim
1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the
teachings of Ley in view of Hojeibane or Dinh.
Appellant urges us to compare the figures in his Specification with
those of the prior art. (See Reply Br. 5-8 (referring to Appellant’s Figures 8
to 15). Contrary to Appellant’s suggestion, while our claim interpretation
must be consistent with the Specification, we do not limit a claim’s scope to
the disclosed embodiments, absent some clear direction to do so. Had
Appellant wanted to so limit his claims, he clearly could have done so by
adding the language “as shown in Figure . . . .”
Citing to a description of “preferred stents,” Appellant argues “the
sequence of structures . . . in Ley . . . does not reverse the orientation of the
strand as disclosed and claimed by Appellant.” (Reply Br. 9 (citing Spec.
24, ll. 11-23).) Appellant further argues that the “loops in Ley . . . contain
intervening structure, the support structure, which passes through the loops”
and “equates to a ‘loop, loop, intervening support structure, loop, loop.’”
(Reply Br. 9.)
As found above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the
claim language does not require a reverse of orientation of the strand and
does not exclude Ley’s additional structure; further it does not require Ley’s
loop (as identified by the Examiner) to be considered more than one loop.
(FFs 1-3, 7-10.) While Appellant’s interpretation may be a reasonable one,
we find the Examiner’s is also reasonable and consistent with the broad
teachings of the Specification. Thus, given our charge regarding how we are
to interpret claims during prosecution, we adopt that of the Examiner.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013