Takeaway: A claim
to an aircraft mounting structure recited a "mount portion ...to be attached to a pylon". The Examiner read the mount portion on a pyramid structure that was part of the assembled pylon. The Applicant argued that because the pyramid structure was already part of the pylon, it would no be understood as a component "to be attached to" the pylon. The Examiner explained that "integration (combining multiple into one) is a form of 'attachment'. " The Board agreed with the Examiner. (Ex parte Cloft, PTAB 2014.)
Details:
Ex parte Cloft
Appeal 2012-005061; Appl. No. 12/016,234; Tech. Center 3600
Decided June 9, 2014
The application was directed to structures for mounting an aircraft engine. Where prior art arrangements used multiple bolted joints to attach the engine to a pylon structure on the wing, the invention used engine mount beams that were integrally formed with the pylons.
Showing posts with label mechanical. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mechanical. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Thursday, August 21, 2014
PTAB interpretations of "integral" in various mechanical applications
Today's post will take a look at how the Board has interpreted the claim term "integral", and variations thereof, in a few different mechanical applications. In these decisions, the Board has read "integral" to be broader than unitary construction – thus covering parts that are welded together – but not so broad as to cover parts that are held together by friction fitting or that are merely interconnected.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Board affirms anticipation of balloon catheter after interpreting "circumferentially extending"
Takeaway: On an appeal of a claim to a balloon catheter, the dispositive issue was claim interpretation relating to a scraper cord carried along outer surface of the balloon. The claim recited that the cord had "a circumferentially extending intermediate portion." The Examiner mapped the cord to the guide wire of a reference catheter. The Applicant argued that the guide wire was so thin that it was unreasonable to say it extended in a circumferential direction. The Examiner took the position that because the guide wire had some width, it did indeed extend circumferentially. The Board agreed and affirmed the rejection. (Ex parte Shekalim, PTAB 2012.)
Details:
Ex parte Shekalim
Appeal 2011009757; Appl. No. 11/885,158; Tech. Center 3700
Decided July 5, 2012
The application was directed to a balloon catheter with an external scraper cord. When the balloon expands, the cord comes into contact with the blood vessel walls. As the balloon is moved along the vessel, the cord scrapes deposits from the vessel walls.
A representative claim on appeal read:
During prosecution, the Examiner rejected an earlier version of claim 1 as as anticipated by the balloon catheter in FIG. 5 of McMurtry (shown below).
The Examiner mapped the "expansible device" element to McMurtry's balloon 14 and the "scraper cord" element to McMurtry's guide wire 15. The Examiner noted that the guide wire was movable along the outer surface in two ways: proximally/distally, through ports 21 and 22; and rotatably, via its proximal end through opening 20 (not shown in FIG. 5).
The Applicant argued that McMurtry's element 15 was not a "scraper cord" but instead was a "guide wire" that acted to guide the catheter into the artery and hold the balloon after expansion. According to the Applicant, McMurtry's guide wire was "certainly not constructed to serve as a 'scraper cord' to scrape away deposits from the inner surface of the artery.
Nevertheless, Applicant amended to further describe the scraper cord as "having a circumferentially extending intermediate portion axially movable." The Applicant then asserted that "such a structure is clearly not present in McMurtry, and to modify it to provide such a structure would render the device of that patent unworkable to perform its intended guiding function."
The Examiner maintained the rejection on final. With respect to the "circumferentially" limitation, the Examiner explained that "since the cord 15 has a thickness/is three dimensional, it extends circumferentially." With respect to the "axially movable" limitation, the Examiner repeated the same comments about proximal/distal movement and rotational movement. Finally, the Examiner found "no structural limitations that distinguish the claimed 'scraper cord' over the cord/guidewire in the McMurtry et al. reference that would deem the cord/guidewire incapable of scraping within a vessel."
The Applicant filed an After Final Response. The Applicant argued that the Examiner's interpretation of the claimed scraper cord was unreasonable, and that the guidewire in the reference was not capable of scraping.
[O]ne skilled in the art would not construe the above-quoted recitation from claim 1 as "reading on" the thickness of the guidewire of McMurtry et al., nor that the guidewire of McMurtry et al. is capable of performing the function of the scraper cord in Applicant's construction, namely to scrape away deposits from the inner surface of the tubular structure. Particularly in this case, where the guidewire is of small circular diameter, both its "circumferentially-extending intermediate portion", which produces the scraping action, and the scraping action produced thereby, would not be significant especially since its movement is constrained to a linear, axial movement.
(Emphasis added.)
The Examiner issued an Advisory Action that essentially repeated the earlier assertions.
On appeal, the Applicant made the same arguments: that the Examiner's construction of the claimed structure of the scraper cord was unreasonable; and that the guide wire wasn't capable of the claimed scraping function. The Examiner maintained the same position in the Answer. The Applicant filed a Reply Brief alleging that the Answer "failed to reference Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief."
The Board affirmed the anticipation rejection. The Board agreed with the Examiner’s finding that McMurtry’s guide wire had the capabilities of the scraper cord recited in claim 1. More specifically, the Board agreed that since a guide wire does have some thickness, "its width or diameter necessarily extended circumferentially with respect to the balloon’s outer surface." The Board further elaborated on this point:
My two cents: The Applicant's catheter clearly had structure which was distinguishable from McMurtry. Compare McMurtry's guide wire 15 (left) with Applicant's scraper cord 4c (below right):
Applicant's top view of the balloon in FIG. 1b shows that the cord's intermediate portion 4c
surrounds a much larger portion of the circumference of the balloon, due to its multiple segments that snake back and forth. In contrast, McMurtry's guide wire 15 covers only an insignificant portion of the circumference of the balloon, though since the guide wire 15 has a width it does cover some of the balloon.
I suspect it was this aspect that the Applicant tried to express through the "circumferentially extending" limitation. But the Applicant's choice of language didn't quite do it for the Examiner or for the Board.
I'm not an expert in drafting mechanical claims, so I won't opine on how best to express this distinction. Maybe you need to at least add in the notion of multiple segments, if "circumferentially" only make sense when there are multiple segments to go around the circumference. Note that this aspect was captured in dependent claim 4. On appeal, dependent claim 4 was rejected as obvious, but The Examiner withdrew this rejection in the Answer.
I will say that the Examiner's interpretation of "circumferentially extending" seems devious to me, but not ridiculous. Maybe the Applicant fully appreciated this yet appealed the independent claim anyway, knowing that claim 4 (which better expressed the distinction) was allowable.
Details:
Ex parte Shekalim
Appeal 2011009757; Appl. No. 11/885,158; Tech. Center 3700
Decided July 5, 2012
The application was directed to a balloon catheter with an external scraper cord. When the balloon expands, the cord comes into contact with the blood vessel walls. As the balloon is moved along the vessel, the cord scrapes deposits from the vessel walls.
A representative claim on appeal read:
1. Apparatus for removing deposits from a selected location on the inner surface of a tubular structure, comprising:
an expansible device constructed such that in its non-expanded condition, it is introducible into the tubular structure, manipulatable therein to said selected location of the tubular structure, and radially-expansible therein to engage the inner surface of the tubular structure and the deposits to be removed; and
at least one elongated scraper cord carried on the outer surface of said expansible device,
said scraper cord being of a flexibility and a thickness to engage the inner surface of said tubular structure upon the expansion of said expansible device, and
having a circumferentially extending intermediate length axially movable with respect to and along the outer surface of said expansible device in its expanded condition to scrape away said deposits from the inner surface of the tubular structure.
(Emphasis added.)
During prosecution, the Examiner rejected an earlier version of claim 1 as as anticipated by the balloon catheter in FIG. 5 of McMurtry (shown below).
The Examiner mapped the "expansible device" element to McMurtry's balloon 14 and the "scraper cord" element to McMurtry's guide wire 15. The Examiner noted that the guide wire was movable along the outer surface in two ways: proximally/distally, through ports 21 and 22; and rotatably, via its proximal end through opening 20 (not shown in FIG. 5).
The Applicant argued that McMurtry's element 15 was not a "scraper cord" but instead was a "guide wire" that acted to guide the catheter into the artery and hold the balloon after expansion. According to the Applicant, McMurtry's guide wire was "certainly not constructed to serve as a 'scraper cord' to scrape away deposits from the inner surface of the artery.
Nevertheless, Applicant amended to further describe the scraper cord as "having a circumferentially extending intermediate portion axially movable." The Applicant then asserted that "such a structure is clearly not present in McMurtry, and to modify it to provide such a structure would render the device of that patent unworkable to perform its intended guiding function."
The Examiner maintained the rejection on final. With respect to the "circumferentially" limitation, the Examiner explained that "since the cord 15 has a thickness/is three dimensional, it extends circumferentially." With respect to the "axially movable" limitation, the Examiner repeated the same comments about proximal/distal movement and rotational movement. Finally, the Examiner found "no structural limitations that distinguish the claimed 'scraper cord' over the cord/guidewire in the McMurtry et al. reference that would deem the cord/guidewire incapable of scraping within a vessel."
The Applicant filed an After Final Response. The Applicant argued that the Examiner's interpretation of the claimed scraper cord was unreasonable, and that the guidewire in the reference was not capable of scraping.
[O]ne skilled in the art would not construe the above-quoted recitation from claim 1 as "reading on" the thickness of the guidewire of McMurtry et al., nor that the guidewire of McMurtry et al. is capable of performing the function of the scraper cord in Applicant's construction, namely to scrape away deposits from the inner surface of the tubular structure. Particularly in this case, where the guidewire is of small circular diameter, both its "circumferentially-extending intermediate portion", which produces the scraping action, and the scraping action produced thereby, would not be significant especially since its movement is constrained to a linear, axial movement.
(Emphasis added.)
The Examiner issued an Advisory Action that essentially repeated the earlier assertions.
On appeal, the Applicant made the same arguments: that the Examiner's construction of the claimed structure of the scraper cord was unreasonable; and that the guide wire wasn't capable of the claimed scraping function. The Examiner maintained the same position in the Answer. The Applicant filed a Reply Brief alleging that the Answer "failed to reference Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief."
The Board affirmed the anticipation rejection. The Board agreed with the Examiner’s finding that McMurtry’s guide wire had the capabilities of the scraper cord recited in claim 1. More specifically, the Board agreed that since a guide wire does have some thickness, "its width or diameter necessarily extended circumferentially with respect to the balloon’s outer surface." The Board further elaborated on this point:
That is, some portion of the balloon’s circumference is necessarily covered by the width of the guide wire, even if less than a degree of the circumference. McMurtry’s guide wire satisfies the first of the disputed requirements.The Board also addressed the "axially movable" limitation. After first noting that the claim itself didn't specify a reference axis, the Board looked to the specification or drawings. The phrase "axially movable" was not found in the specification, and no annotations were present in the drawings to specify an axis. However, movement along the longitudinal axis of the balloon was illustrated in Applicant's Figs. 1a-c, and this met the ordinary meaning of "axially." Since McMurtry’s guide wire also moved parallel to the longitudinal axis of the balloon, McMurtry taught this limitation.
My two cents: The Applicant's catheter clearly had structure which was distinguishable from McMurtry. Compare McMurtry's guide wire 15 (left) with Applicant's scraper cord 4c (below right):
 |
 |
surrounds a much larger portion of the circumference of the balloon, due to its multiple segments that snake back and forth. In contrast, McMurtry's guide wire 15 covers only an insignificant portion of the circumference of the balloon, though since the guide wire 15 has a width it does cover some of the balloon.
I suspect it was this aspect that the Applicant tried to express through the "circumferentially extending" limitation. But the Applicant's choice of language didn't quite do it for the Examiner or for the Board.
I'm not an expert in drafting mechanical claims, so I won't opine on how best to express this distinction. Maybe you need to at least add in the notion of multiple segments, if "circumferentially" only make sense when there are multiple segments to go around the circumference. Note that this aspect was captured in dependent claim 4. On appeal, dependent claim 4 was rejected as obvious, but The Examiner withdrew this rejection in the Answer.
I will say that the Examiner's interpretation of "circumferentially extending" seems devious to me, but not ridiculous. Maybe the Applicant fully appreciated this yet appealed the independent claim anyway, knowing that claim 4 (which better expressed the distinction) was allowable.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
BPAI requires claim terms to be interpreted using same perspective (Ex parte Saint-Gobain)
Takeaway: The BPAI held that a proper claim construction of "curved" and "straight" must use the same perspective for both terms. The Examiner's erroneous construction interpreted "curved" using a cross-section view while using a top view to interpret "straight." Under the proper claim construction, the Board found that the combination did not teach all the elements, and so reversed the obviousness rejection. (Ex parte Saint-Gobain.)
Details:
Ex parte Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.
Appeal 2009004255, Reexam Control 90/008,001, Tech. Center 3900
Decided June 4, 2010
The claim for which claim construction was at issue was directed to a conveyor belt. The belt included raised ribs on both faces, where the ribs on the first face "have a curved shape" and ribs on the second face "are straight."
The Examiner relied on Fig. 3 of the Gilbert reference for teaching both sets of ribs:
The Examiner took the position that the ribs in Gilbert were curved as seen in profile view, and also "extend straight and parallel across the belt.”
The Applicant argued that the Examiner's construction was improper:
According to the Applicant, the proper construction was understood according to Fig.2 of the application, which shows the sinusoidal ribs in whole lines and the straight ribs in dotted lines:
The Board agreed with the Applicant. The Board explained that the Applicant construed both “curved shape” and “straight” in the same (top view) perspective, while the Examiner construed “curved shape” in one perspective (cross-section) and “straight” a different perspective (cross-section). "Given the context of the whole claim, this [the Applicant's] construction is the proper one."
My two cents: Nothing revolutionary here, but a good angle to think about when claiming spatial relationships between claim elements.
Details:
Ex parte Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.
Appeal 2009004255, Reexam Control 90/008,001, Tech. Center 3900
Decided June 4, 2010
The claim for which claim construction was at issue was directed to a conveyor belt. The belt included raised ribs on both faces, where the ribs on the first face "have a curved shape" and ribs on the second face "are straight."
The Examiner relied on Fig. 3 of the Gilbert reference for teaching both sets of ribs:
The Applicant argued that the Examiner's construction was improper:
... In making this rejection, the Patent Office appears to be applying a meaning to the claim term "wherein the ribs raised above the first face have a curved shape ... and the ribs raised above the second face are straight, [and] are parallel to each other" different than that dictated by the specification. Such an interpretation is incorrect.
According to the Applicant, the proper construction was understood according to Fig.2 of the application, which shows the sinusoidal ribs in whole lines and the straight ribs in dotted lines:
The Board agreed with the Applicant. The Board explained that the Applicant construed both “curved shape” and “straight” in the same (top view) perspective, while the Examiner construed “curved shape” in one perspective (cross-section) and “straight” a different perspective (cross-section). "Given the context of the whole claim, this [the Applicant's] construction is the proper one."
My two cents: Nothing revolutionary here, but a good angle to think about when claiming spatial relationships between claim elements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)