Appeal 2006-3382
Application 10/461,709
disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away
from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize,
discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed in the ‘198
application.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
Our reviewing court states in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) that “claims must be interpreted as
broadly as their terms reasonably allow.” Our reviewing court further states,
“[t]he terms used in the claims bear a ‘heavy presumption’ that they mean
what they say and have the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to
those words by persons skilled in the relevant art.” Texas Digital Sys. Inc v.
Telegenix Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1817 (Fed. Cir.
2002).
ANALYSIS
Appellant has contended that Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2,
4, 5, 7, 8, 14-22, 28-51, 53-55, and 57-62 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and
103(a). Reviewing the findings of facts cited above, the recited elements of
those claims are either anticipated by Goluszek or rendered obvious over his
teaching, alone or in view of the teachings of Wang. Appellant’s arguments
have been considered, but have not been found persuasive.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14-22, 28-51,
53-55, and 57-62.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013