Appeal No. 94-3726
Application 07/978,531
the following new rejections: (1) claim 10 is rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, since claim 10 does not
specify a further limitations of the subject matter claimed in
the claim it depends upon; (2) claim 11 is rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by O'Connor or Anderson; (3)
claims 1 through 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over O'Connor or Anderson; and (4) claims 1
through 11 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine
of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1, 7 through
12 and 14 of O'Connor or claims 1 through 5 of Anderson.
OPINION
A. The Claimed Subject Matter
As our initial inquiry into a review of the examiner's
rejection under § 103, we must analyze the claimed language to
determine the scope and meaning of each contested limitation.
See Gechter v. Daivdson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030,
1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997). During patent examination, the claims
must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably
allow. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320,
1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007