Appeal No. 2004-2032
Application No. 09/729,498
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lewis in view of
Baxter.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
Appellants and by the Examiner concerning the above noted
rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, these rejections cannot be
sustained.
As a preliminary matter, it is appropriate to express our
construction of the independent claims on appeal. We begin doing
so by observing that, during examination proceedings, claims are
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Thus, it is reasonable to interpret
independent apparatus claim 1 and independent method claim 24,
consistent with the subject specification, as being limited to a
computer means which performs the claim 1 functions and the claim
24 steps of determining the compatibility of the pharmaceutical
components relative to one another and determining the order in
which the components are transferred during the preparation of the
prescription admixture. This claim construction corresponds to
that expressed by both the Appellants and the Examiner on the
record of this appeal.
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007