Appeal No. 1996-3670 Page 14
Application No. 08/217,063
Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322
(Fed. Cir. 1989)).1
Here, giving claim 7 its broadest reasonable construction
and recalling our treatment of the indefiniteness rejection of
claim 7, the limitations recited by the appellant merely require
downloading, to a computer, installation software and software to
be installed and then running the installation software with
little or no input from a user.
“[A] disclosure that anticipates under Section 102 also
renders the claim invalid under Section 103, for 'anticipation is
the epitome of obviousness.'" Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
1 “The PTO broadly interprets claims during examination of a
patent application since the applicant may ‘amend his claims to
obtain protection commensurate with his actual contribution to
the art.’” In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934,
936 (Fed. Cir. 1984)(quoting In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393,
1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969)). “This approach serves
the public interest by reducing the possibility that claims,
finally allowed, will be given broader scope than is justified.
Applicants' interests are not impaired since they are not
foreclosed from obtaining appropriate coverage for their
invention with express claim language.” Id. at 1571-72, 222 USPQ
at 936 (citing Prater, 415 F.2d at 1405 n.31, 162 USPQ at 550
n.31).
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007