Appeal No. 1996-3808 Page 4
Application No. 08/213,832
together. Accordingly, we select claim 3, the sole2
independent process claim as representative of appellants’
invention and limit our consideration to said claim. 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.192(c)(7) 1995.
We have carefully considered appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the
examiner that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable in
view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain
the examiner's rejection for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and the claim language is to be read in view of
the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548,
218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d
545, 548, 190 USPQ 4564, 466 (CCPA 1976).
2Each of our references to appellants’ Brief refer to the
Substitute Brief on Appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007