Appeal No. 1996-3525 Page 8
Application No. 08/089,595
The appellants do not contest the examiner's
determination of the obviousness of combining the teachings of
Morris '374 with the teachings of Morris '163. Instead, the
appellants argue that certain claimed limitations would still
not be met by the combined teachings of the applied prior art.
Claims 10 and 11
With respect to claims 10 and 11, the appellants argue
(brief, pp. 12-13 and reply brief, p. 4) that the combined
teachings of the applied prior art would not have suggested
the limitations found in paragraph e) of claim 10 . 3
Specifically, the appellants argue that push button 37 of
Morris '163 is not a sensor and does not generate a signal.
It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the PTO,
claims in an application are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification,
and that claim language should be read in light of the
3Paragraph e) of claim 10 recites:
a sensor axially movable relative to said plunger
for generating a demand signal upon the user moving said
plunger into operative association with said sensor.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007