Appeal No. 95-1202
Application No. 08/106,144
cert denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984), for a proper anticipation
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) it is only necessary for
the claims to "'read on' something disclosed in the reference,
i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference,
or 'fully met' by it." The review of any prior art rejection,
whether for anticipation or obviousness, however requires
first that the claims have been correctly construed to define
the scope and meaning of the relevant limitation. Gechter v.
Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2nd 1030, 1032 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). In proceedings before the Patent and Trademark
Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it
would be construed by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
In setting forth his anticipation rejection herein, the
examiner has construed the claim language
first and second terminal electrodes formed so
as to be externally engageable at a first end
edge portion of the insulating substrate
and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007