Appeal No. 97-2886
Application 08/441,493
game board to said character’s final position in the solution
area of the game board along a predefined path of the type set
forth in appellant’s claim 1.
For the above reasons, the examiner's rejection of
appellant's independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will not be
sustained. The examiner's rejection under 35 USC § 103 of claims
3 through 8, which depend from claim 1, will likewise not be
sustained. In this regard, we note particularly that the
examiner's interpretation of the "substantially identical"
portions of the paths in appellant's claim 3 on appeal (answer,
pages 5-6) is clearly not a "reasonable" interpretation of the
claim requirements given appellant's disclosure (specification,
pages 4-5) regarding such "substantially identical" path
portions. In this regard, we note that it is well settled that,
during the prosecution of a patent application, claims are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification. See, In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 218 USPQ 385
(Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Tanaka, 551 F.2d 855, 193 USPQ 138 (CCPA
1977).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007