Appeal No. 96-1902
Application No. 08/156,679
"closed" ventilation wherein the tracheal pressure is taken
into account in determining the amount of gas supplied during
ventilation to "open" ventilation wherein the tracheal
pressure is not taken into account in determining the amount
of gas supplied during ventilation (see, e.g., column 2, lines
1-7). In either case, the ventilation (and, hence, flow) is
"cyclic." Accordingly, giving the above-noted recitation in
claim 11 its broadest reasonable interpretation, we are of 3
the opinion that the control signals of Weerda can be
considered to control "a cyclic flow" of the respiratory gas
as broadly claimed. While we appreciate the fact that there
are differences in operation between the appellants' device
and that of Weerda, these differences simply have not been set
forth in claim 11.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 11 and 12 based on the
3It is well settled that the terminology in a pending
application's claims is to be given its broadest reasonable
interpretation (In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)) and limitations
from a pending application's specification will not be read
into the claims (Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581-82, 6
USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007