Appeal No. 2003-0229
Application No. 09/768,885
Issue A
To aid us in determining whether the examiner applied the
prior art correctly against the appealed claims, we must first
consider the scope and meaning of certain terms that appear in
representative claim 16. Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454,
1457, 1460 n.3, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032, 1035 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1997);
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed.
Cir. 1994). It is well settled that, in proceedings before the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), claims in an
application are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation, taking into account the written description
found in the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054,
44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)(“During
patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as
broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”); In re Yamamoto, 740
F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984)(“The PTO
broadly interprets claims during examination of a patent
application since the applicant may ‘amend his claim to obtain
protection commensurate with his actual contribution to the
art.’”)(quoting In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ
541, 550 (CCPA 1969)).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007