Appeal No. 2001-2186 Page 3
Application No. 08/674,865
written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. We reverse with respect to
both rejections.
OPINION
Obviousness
All the claims are dependent on claim 14 and thus require that the furnace include four
electrode connecting terminals arranged so that the angle between the adjacent terminals
substantially equals 90° (Claim 14). The Examiner finds that Wilsey describes electrode
connecting terminals in the claimed arrangement (Answer at 5). However, we agree with
Appellants that the Examiner’s finding is based on an incorrect interpretation of the claim
language (Brief at 20-21).
“When examining claims for patentability, claims are interpreted as broadly as is
reasonable and consistent with the specification.” In re Thrift, 298 F.3d 1357, 1364, 63 USPQ2d
2002, 2006 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The key words here are “reasonable” and “consistent.” The
Examiner’s interpretation is not reasonable as it completely eliminates the limitation introduced
by the language “the angle between the adjacent terminals substantially equals 90°.” Every
limitation in the claims must be given effect rather than considering one in isolation from the
others. In re Geerdes, 491 F.2d 1260, 1262-63, 180 USPQ 789, 791 (CCPA 1974). Nor is the
Examiner’s interpretation “consistent with the specification.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007