Appeal No. 1998-3401
Application No. 08/495,277
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9 on appeal stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of
Kumar and Dull. (Examiner’s answer, pages 3-5.) Further, claims
3, 4, and 7 on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Kumar, Dull, and
Ashcraft. (Id. at pages 5-6.) Additionally, claim 8 on appeal
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Kumar, Dull, and JP '462. (Id. at page 6.)
We reverse the aforementioned rejections.
As in any appeal, we start by analyzing the scope and
meaning of each contested claim limitation in order to determine
whether the examiner applied the prior art correctly against the
appealed claims. Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 1460
n.3, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032, 1035 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir.
1994). It is true that, in proceedings before the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office (PTO), claims must be interpreted by giving
words their broadest reasonable meanings in their ordinary usage,
taking into account the written description found in the
specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22,
13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). However, the
interpretation of the claim language must be "reasonable in light
of the totality of the written description." In re Baker Hughes
Inc., 215 F.3d 1297, 1303, 55 USPQ2d 1149, 1153 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007