Appeal No. 2002-2080
Application 09/358,484
Toyoda et al. (Toyoda)1 6-1682 Jan. 11, 1994
(Japanese Kokai Patent Publication)
The examiner has rejected appealed claims 21 through 25, 28 through 30, 32, 34 and 35
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kondo in view of Toyoda (answer, pages
3-5).2
Appellants, in the brief (pages 4-5), group the appealed claims as follows: (1) claims
21-23, 25 and 28-30; (2) claim 32; (4) claim 34; (5) claim 35; and (6) claims 24 and 29.3 Thus,
we decide this appeal based on appealed claims 21, 24, 32, 34 and 35. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)
(2002).
We affirm the ground of rejection with respect to appealed claims 21 through 25, 28
through 30 and 34, and reverse the ground of rejection with respect to claims 32 and 35.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellants,
we refer to the examiner’s answer and to appellants’ brief and reply brief for a complete
exposition thereof.
Opinion
Our consideration of the examiner’s application of prior art to the appealed claims must
begin with interpreting the language of the claims in light of the written description in appellants’
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this art, giving the claim terms
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the written description in the
specification. See, e.g., In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir.
2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997), In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The plain language of
appealed claims 21, 32 and 34 contested here, requires “providing a sintered article of aluminum
1 We refer in our decision to the translation of Toyoda prepared for the USPTO by The Ralph
McElroy Translation Company (December, 1999).
2 We modified the statement of the rejected claims appearing in the answer to reflect the claims
on appeal.
3 We modified the statement of the grouping of claims appearing in the brief to reflect the claims
on appeal, and thus, group 3 is not listed.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007