Appeal No. 95-2218
Application 07/902,073
21. Appellant has not presented objective evidence of
secondary considerations for us to review. Cf. In re Geisler,
116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Such
evidence should be in the specification or other evidentiary
submission.).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Claim interpretation
1. During examination, we must give claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation since Applicants are in the position to
amend their claims to avoid problems. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Applicants are
obliged to claim precisely. Morris, F.3d at ___, 43 USPQ2d
at 1759. When appellants concede for the purposes of appeal that
an elements in their claims cover prior art structures, we must
take such concessions at face value unless the concessions are
manifestly unreasonable. Stripped to its essentials, claim 12
(as argued) requires the following elements arranged as shown and
no more:
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007