Appeal No. 97-0176
Application No. 08/313,604
We are not persuaded by appellants' argument. The
rejection under review is based on a combination of
references, namely, Van Dievoet and Clapham. The argument
that Van Dievoet teaches away from the claimed invention
appears to us to be an attack on Van Dievoet individually as
opposed to an argument that one would not combine Van Dievoet
and Clapham in the manner suggested by the examiner because
the art teaches away from the examiner's proposed
modification. Appellants have not identified any teaching in
either Van Dievoet or Clapham that would discourage a person
of ordinary skill in the art from using ZIRCALOY® in the
manufacture of the end plugs as taught by Van Dievoet.
In addition, we agree with the examiner that the step of
"minimizing, eliminating or rendering ineffective defects
forming fluid leakage paths through the end plugs" is
disclosed in Van Dievoet. The terminology in a pending
application's claims is to be given its broadest reasonable
interpretation (In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44
USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (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
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007