Appeal 2007-1422
Reexamination Control 90/007,260
Patent 6,093,139
DISCUSSION
Scope of the Claims
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should not be based upon
speculation and assumptions as to the scope of the claims. In re Steele,
305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962). Accordingly, we
determine first the scope and content of the claimed subject matter.
In a reexamination proceeding, claims should be given the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Yamamoto,
740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “The reason is
simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended,
ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored,
and clarification imposed.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “An essential purpose during patent
examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and
unambiguous.” Id. “Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be
removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” Id.
Claim 1 reads (Appendix A to the Brief; emphasis added):
1. Product cutting device for flat material comprising:
a pinless product folding cylinder rotating about an axis of
rotation and having a surface supporting an incoming material;
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013