Appeal 2007-2783
Reexamination 90/005,509
Patent 5,533,499
end region of the truss. These claims recite only that the resilient member is
“secured to” at least a tissue engaging portion of each of the first and second
end regions. An element A may be “secured to” an element B in myriad
ways. Direct contact is not required. All that is necessary is that the two
elements are attached or physically connected, even if the attachment or
connection is through an intermediate component. The patentee’s
specification does not define any special meaning for the term “secured to”
unique to the involved patent. The patentee also does not argue any special
meaning for the term “secured to” in the art of nasal dilators. Thus, the
ordinary meaning of “secured to” in the English language applies. For
instance, a bicycle may properly be referred to as “secured to” a bike rack by
chain and lock even if it makes no direct contact to the rack. In the case of
Iriarte’s embodiment of Figure 2, resilient lamina 1 is “secured to” areas
which actually engage tissue by attachment to areas which do not.
Claim 53 recites that the truss has an intermediate segment configured
to traverse a portion of a nose located between the first and second nasal
passages “which includes an adhesive void extending between opposite
portions of said side edges.” According to the patentee, the embodiment
shown in Figure 2 of Iriarte does not include such an adhesive void because
the area of the truss 2 which would traverse the nose portion between first
and second nasal passages clearly includes adhesive along the peripheral
edges for contacting tissue despite the presence of an adhesive void in the
central region of that area. The argument is without merit.
The patentee would read “an adhesive void extending between
opposite portions of said side edges” as excluding any and all adhesive
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013