Appeal No. 96-0979
Application No. 07/979,552
Appellant takes issue with our statement in the decision
that "[a]ppellant's specification imparts no specific structure
to the frame." (Emphasis added.) Appellant responds that the
specification describes the frame as "being generally rectangular
and having a generally rectangular central opening" (page 1 of
Request). However, appellant's argument makes our point
precisely, viz., a generally rectangular shape and opening does
not amount to a specific structure. Also, it is not apparent to
us, as urged in the Request, that frame 11 of specification
Figure 1 has a relatively massive body. Furthermore, it is by
now well settled that claim language is to be given its broadest
reasonable interpretation during prosecution and that specific
limitations found in the specification are not to be read into
the claims.
Appellant's argument regarding the step of testing the chip
for proper electrical operation before installing a heatsink has
been adequately addressed in the original decision.
We have reconsidered our decision, as requested by
appellant, but we fail to find any error therein. Accordingly,
appellant's request is denied with respect to making any change
in our decision.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007