Appeal 2007-2649
Application 10/235,998
Appellants argue that “[a]s a whole, the invention is drawn to the use
of the patient data monitor surface as an electrode, yet this is completely
lacking in the cited prior art” (Br. 8). Specifically, Appellants argue, Dotan
“positions the body electrode adjacent, but separate from, other elements via
a belt” and Sarbach “positions electrodes 1 and 2 on a belt separated from
processor 5 (see fig. 1), such that Sarbach also fails to teach or fairly suggest
an electrode patch on a patient data monitor surface” (id.).
Appellants argue that interpreting the “surface of said patient data
monitor” to encompass the surface of a belt holding the monitor, as urged by
the Examiner, is inconsistent with the Specification (Reply Br. 4).
Appellants urge that “[t]he present specification refers to the device of U.S.
Patent No. 6,443,890 with respect to the meaning of a patient data monitor.
It is not a belt, but a small unitary device” (id.).
It is well settled that “claims in an application are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and that
claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,
1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). However,
“absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should only
limit the claim based on the specification or prosecution history when those
sources expressly disclaim the broader definition.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d
1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (Fed Cir. 2004). Thus, “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, 322, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013