Appeal No. 2003-1494
Application 09/685,178
not read into the claim language without basis therefor in that language, and we find no basis to
read a two position switch into the language of the appealed claims. See generally, Morris,
supra; Zletz, supra. Indeed, the claim language must be considered as it stands, regardless of the
examiner’s view of the sufficiency thereof vis-à-vis the disclosure in the specification (answer,
pages 5-6). Cf. Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983), aff’d mem., 738 F.2d 453
(Fed. Cir 1984).
Turning now to the disclosure of Douglas, on this record, we agree with appellant (brief,
pages 4-5 and 6; reply brief, pages 1-2) that, as a matter of fact, the disclosure of Douglas at page
2, lines 7-13 and 60-63, would have reasonably disclosed to one of ordinary skill in this art a
pressure-sensing switch mechanism that has two operating points and not “a pressure-sensing
switch having a single operating point” as required by the appealed claims. We note here that the
examiner does not rely on any of the other applied references with respect to this claim
limitation.
Accordingly, appellant having rebutted the examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness,
we reverse the grounds of rejection. See generally, Oetiker, supra.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
2 Answer, pages 3-5.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007