Appeal No. 95-4838
Application No. 08/131,643
In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 834, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir.
1990).
Other Issues
In the event of further prosecution the examiner should
review at least claim 1 with respect to a rejection on the
grounds of anticipation over the reference to Diachuk. In
doing so, the examiner should consider whether the oxidizing
filter 209, and the oxidizing medium 113 meet the requirements
of, “an exhaust gas destruction unit.” The examiner should
further consider whether the cooking unit and hood meet the
requirements of, “an input coupled to receive at least one
exhaust gas.” In interpreting the scope of the claimed
subject matter, claims in an application are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and read in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In
re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007