Appeal No. 95-1844
Application 07/822,063
a reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed
invention “such that a skilled artisan could take its
teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the
particular art and be in possession of the invention.” In re
Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir.
1995), quoting from In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936, 133 USPQ
365, 372 (CCPA 1962). We agree with the examiner as to what
the schematic representation of current transformer 30
indicates. Although appellant seeks to have us import his
preferred embodiment into the claim, we decline to do so. A
claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation during
prosecution before the Patent and Trademark Office, and the
examiner’s interpretation of claim 5 is reasonable and
correct. Appellant’s argument regarding the property
possessed by his invention of tolerating reversed phases is
not required by the language of claim 5.
Although we agree with the examiner’s finding that the
current transformer of Lehrmann meets the language of claim 5,
we also note that Fink substantiates this view [a copy of2
2Fink et al. (Fink), Standard Handbook For Electrical
Engineers, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968, pages 10-21 and 10-
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007