Appeal No. 2000-1555
Application No. 08/922,929
the most recent assumed position (brief, page 6). Appellant
contests the Examiner’s conclusion that including a “spring
material” causes layer 12 to be also biased to a particular
position (brief, pages 6 & 7).
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner asserts
that Blonder’s strap stays in an upright position while it has to
be bent before being attached around the wrist (answer, page 11).
The Examiner also points out that an external force is needed to
bend and deform the strap from its upright position in order to
attach it around the wrist (id.).
Before addressing the Examiner’s rejection based on prior
art, as pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. “[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). Claims will be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and
limitation appearing in the specification are not to be read into
the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed.
Cir. 1985).
A review of claim 1 reveals that the claimed radio handset
assembly requires a wearable element and a radio handset. The
handset is further required to be demountable from the wearable
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007