Appeal No. 96-2881
Application No. 08/013,646
specification, the claim can have only the meaning
noted above, as no other interpretation makes sense.
(Emphasis added.) (Reply brief at pages 2 and 3.)
The Examiner responds:
This argument is not persuasive because it is
unsupported by claim language. The claim language
does not contain the limitation during printing.
(Answer at page 4.)
Appellants take issue with the Examiner’s
statement that an argued limitation, i.e. during
printing, was not persuasive because this limitation
is not part of the claim language. Appellants state
the claims are clear and definite in defining that
which they regard as their invention. Appellants
are correct in stating there is no 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, rejection. The noted examiners
statement merely refers to the fact that Appellants
arguments are not of the same scope as their claim
language. (Emphasis added.) (Supplemental answer
at page 1.)
“[T]he name of the game is the claim.” In re
Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed.
Cir. 1998).
"Analysis begins with a key legal question--what is the
invention claimed? . . . Claim interpretation . . . will
normally control the remainder of the decisional process.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007