Appeal No. 1996-3814 Page 11
Application No. 08/348,835
Ellis, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring-in-part;
dissenting-in-part.
I concur with majority that the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, cannot be sustained. However, because I disagree with
their resolution of the issues raised by the examiner under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, it follows that my reasons for
reversing the obviousness rejection differ. In my view the §
112 rejection should be affirmed as the claim is vague and
indefinite for failing to positively set forth the
relationship between the claimed elements. See the
Supplemental Examiner’s Answer, Paper No. 28, p. 3, para. 1.
It is well established that “[d]uring patent examination
the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their
terms reasonably allow.” 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)(“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.”)
Nevertheless, it is imperative that claim limitations or
embodiments appearing in the specification not be read into
the claims. Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal, Ltd., 781 F.2d 861,
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007