Appeal No. 95-3592
Application 08/109,203
However, we fail to find that the scope of
Appellants' claim requires that the resistive means carry all
of the current or preclude other resistive means. Our
reviewing court states in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) that "claims must be
interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow." We
note that Appellants' claims recite "comprising" and thereby
Appellants' claims do not preclude other resistive means. In
addition, we fail to find any limitations in the claims that
require a value of resistance or amount of the current that is
to flow through the resistive means.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner is
required to consider the function language "having a
resistance responsive to the voltage." We note that
Appellants and Examiner have argued this issue in the briefs
and answers at considerable
length and detail. We find that the Examiner has shown that
Shirato does teach resistive means 26 which has a resistance
responsive to the voltage. We note that Appellants' broad
claim language does not preclude a reading that a resistance
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007