Appeal 2007-2558
Application 10/205,948
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus for holding an annuloplasty ring.
The apparatus comprises a fixed jaw member, a movable jaw member, and
“a coupling means for operably connecting the fixed and movable jaw
members to provide releasable compression clamping.”
The preamble of claim 1 recites that the apparatus is “for holding an
annuloplasty ring.” Preamble language that merely states the purpose or
intended use of an invention is generally not treated as limiting the scope of
the claim. Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 952, 78 USPQ2d
1267, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v.
Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345, 65 USPQ2d 1961, 1964 (Fed.
Cir. 2003). “However, the preamble is regarded as limiting if it recites
essential structure that is important to the invention or necessary to give
meaning to the claim.” Bicon, 441 F.3d at 952, 78 USPQ2d at 1273.
Here, the claim body recites that “the fixed and movable jaw
members” are connected by a “coupling means” which provides for
“releasable compression clamping for holding the annuloplasty ring.” Thus,
the “coupling means” is the structure which enables the apparatus to achieve
“compression clamping” and to hold the annuloplasty ring. The preamble
language that the apparatus is for “holding an annuloplasty ring” does not
itself confer a definite or further structural limitation to the apparatus; it is an
intended use of the claimed apparatus. For this reason, we do not interpret
the phrase “holding an annuloplasty ring” to limit the scope of the claim.
The fixed jaw member in claim 1 has “either a peripheral edge spaced
radially outward from the base or a plurality of fingers extending radially
outward from the base.” During patent prosecution, the words in a claim are
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013