Appeal No. 1996-3903 Page 7
Application No. 08/305,225
we are obliged to do. We hasten to add that this is a procedural reversal rather than one
based upon the merits of the section 103 rejections.
CLAIMS 43-52
With respect to claim 43, appellants argue that the prior art does not teach or
suggest the invention as claimed in claim 43. (See brief at pages 11-12.) We agree, we
find that neither Fickenwirth nor Lederman teaches the claim limitation wherein the
“membrane being pre-stretched isotopically throughout the entire membrane between said
first means and said second means.” Furthermore, the examiner has not provided a
convincing line of reasoning as to why it would have been obvious to skilled artisans to
combine the teachings of Fickenwirth and Lederman.
With respect to claim 50, appellants argue that Fickenwirth does not teach or
suggest the invention as set forth in the language of claim 50. We agree. 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 specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983). When the skilled artisan reads the limitations recited in claim 50 in light of the
disclosure, it is clear that the claim language regarding the "orthogonal sinusoidal dimples
extending in line both radially and circumferentially” is not the same as structure disclosed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007