Appeal 2007-2563
Application 10/058,640
USPQ2d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In this case, we agree with
Appellants that Dang does not anticipate claims 1 and 10 because it does not
describe a stent, as claimed, in which each leg of an elongate connector
“does not overlap longitudinally” with the serpentine bands; Dang’s
connector legs overlap with the serpentine bands. Thus, we reverse the
rejection of claims 1 and 10, and dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 11, 13, and 14.
The Examiner argues that Appellants give “to[o] much weight to the
claim language” of “does not overlap longitudinally” (Answer 8). The
scope of a claim is defined by the language used to describe the invention.
The “weight” of each term recited in the claim is measured by properly
determining “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking
into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that
may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s
specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027
(Fed. Cir. 1997). The Examiner interprets the term “overlap” as we do – to
mean “to cover a part of” (Answer 8). The “legs” of Dang’s tie member
coincide with, and therefore necessarily, cover a part of the serpentine band.
Thus, giving the claim interpretation its proper weight in defining the scope
of the claim, we conclude that Dang does not meet the limitation excluding
overlap between the legs and struts.
Claim 1 also requires that the serpentine bands are “consisting of a
plurality of interconnect struts.” We do not find that this limitation alone
distinguishes the stent of claim 1 from Dang’s stent. We interpreted
“consisting of” to exclude any other structural member from the serpentine
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013