Appeal No. 95-2622
Application 08/125,524
We say again, during prosecution in the Patent Office,
claim language is to be given the broadest reasonable
interpretation which is consistent with the description of the
invention in the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d at 321,
13 USPQ2d at 1322; In re Prater, 415 F.2d at 1404-05, 162 USPQ
at 550-51. The oriented polymeric monofilament of appellants’
claims is defined solely in terms of monofilament
configuration, monofilament diameter, and polymer type. An
invention encompassed by appellant’s claims would have been
obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art in view
of McKay’s teachings of monofilaments of the same
configuration, the same diameter, and the same polymer type.
As said in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d at 321, 13 USPQ2d at 1322:
During patent examination the pending claims must be
interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.
. . . The reason is simply that during patent prosecution
when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be
recognized, scope and breadth of language explored,
and clarification imposed.
4. Rejection under § 103 in view of the teaching
of Spencer or Gruhn in view of McKay (‘749)
or McKay (‘363) and Bradley or Aharoni
We agree with the examiner’s conclusion that subject
matter encompassed by Claims 5 to 7 is unpatentable under
- 19 -
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007