Ex Parte Algren et al - Page 5

            Appeal 2007-1828                                                                                 
            Application 10/772,811                                                                           

                   needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the                    
                   circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be                   
                   patented.” Id., at 17-18, 148 USPQ at 467.                                                
            While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular case,                 
            the factors continue to define the inquiry that controls. If a court, or patent                  
            examiner, conducts this analysis and concludes the claimed subject matter was                    
            obvious, the claim is invalid or unpatentable under §103. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex              
            Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1388 (2007).                                         
                   All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that              
            claim against the prior art.  If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to               
            certain terms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious--the claim                
            becomes indefinite.  In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496                        
            (CCPA 1970). Our analysis of the claims indicates that considerable speculation as               
            to meaning of the terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of such claims                  
            needs to be made.  A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should not be based on such                 
            speculations and assumptions.  In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292,                    
            295 (CCPA 1962); Ex parte Head, 214 USPQ 551 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1981).                        
                   Section 112, second paragraph, is satisfied if a person skilled in the field of           
            the invention would reasonably understand the claim when read in the context of                  
            the specification.  Marley Mouldings Limited v Mikron Industries, Inc., 417 F.3d                 
            1356, 1359, 75 USPQ2d 1954, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Union Pac. Res. Co.                    
            v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., 236 F.3d 684, 692, 57 USPQ2d 1293, 1297 (Fed.                        
            Cir. 2001) (the definiteness requirement set forth in § 112, ¶ 2 focuses on whether              
            those skilled in the art would understand the scope of the claim when the claim is               
            read in light of the rest of the specification)); Miles Labs., Inc. v. Shandon, 997              
            F.2d 870, 875, 27 USPQ2d 1123, 1126 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (if the claims "reasonably                  

                                                     5                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013