Appeal No. 95-4691
Application 08/021,652
cal Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1217, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1030 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied sub nom.,
Genetics Inst., Inc. v. Amgen, Inc., 112 S.Ct. 169 (1991). On the record before us, the examiner has
not presented an analysis of the teachings of the prior art and the application disclosure as it would be
interpreted by a person having ordinary skill in the pertinent art to establish that such a person would have
found the claim indefinite in scope. Taking the ordinary meaning of the term “broad,” namely, covering a
wide scope. We find that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable understanding4
of the ranges as exemplified in Tables 1-4 of appellants’ specification. Accordingly, we reverse this
rejection.
The examiner rejected claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Duffy, Isaacs, Dussourdd’-
Hinterland and EP 198321. We have carefully reviewed the respective positions presented by appellants
and the examiner. In so doing, we find ourselves in agreement with appellants that the applied prior art fails
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner's rejection for essentially those reasons advanced by appellants, and we add the
following primarily for emphasis.
Before we can consider the prior art, the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter must be
ascertained. The claims are interpreted in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in this art, In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir.
4The American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Mass., p. 210
(1982).
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007