Appeal No. 1995-1539
Application No. 07/950,388
admitted prior art (Answer, page 4, together with the Office
action dated Feb. 1, 1993, page 4).
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have reviewed
the specification, claims and applied prior art, including all
of the arguments advanced by both the examiner and appellant
in support of their respective positions. As a result of this
review, we make the determinations which follow.
We begin our consideration of the issues before us by
determining the scope of the claimed subject matter. Gechter
v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671,
1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We give words in the claims the
broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44
USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). When there is an apparent
intent in the specification to utilize those words in a more
limited sense, we give them such meaning. See, e.g.,
Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
90 F.3d 1576, 1582, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996);
Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480, 31 USPQ2d at 1674.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007