Appeal 2007-2608
Application 10/473,998
the center of the cover plate of the other side of the same core, in a single
prosthesis, along the ventrodorsal axis.
It may well be that Erickson does not describe a corrective prosthesis
with a configuration like that illustrated in Figure 5 or Figure 7, but Claim 1
is not limited to such a configuration. The issue raised by this appeal, then,
is whether the claimed invention is distinguishable over Erickson.
During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d
1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “An essential purpose
of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and
unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed,
as much as possible, during the administrative process.” In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 322, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
As discussed above, claim 1 encompasses a system wherein the
required ventrodorsal offset is between two different prostheses (i.e., the first
and second prostheses), and not necessarily between the two cover plates of
a single prosthesis. Moreover, the term “system” is not defined in the
Specification, and we find nothing in the claim itself that requires
implantation of the prostheses - thus, the requirements of claim 1 would be
satisfied by an assortment of Erickson’s prostheses: for example, a first
prosthesis wherein the center of the end piece, and the center of the articular
surface are not coaxial (Erickson, col. 7, ll. 7-12), and a second prosthesis
where they are.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013