Appeal No. 97-0514
Application 08/345,114
detector operable to detect radiation
emitted . . . ,
said emitted radiation caused by said
current flow." The Murphy reference also
does not disclose, as required by Claim 17,
"detecting radiation emitted by the
surface, the emitted radiation caused by
said current flow in the surface."
The Murphy reference discloses detecting
magnetic fields produced by current in soil
in which a pipe being tested is buried.
Without question, the magnetic field
produced by this flowing current is very
different from, and does not anticipate,
the emitted radiation of Applicant's
claimed invention. In fact, the Murphy
reference does not address, in any way, the
emission or detection of radiation of
Applicant's claimed invention.
The same argument is presented concerning the Fichtenbaum and
Seddick references, and is the only argument made by appellant
as to rejections (2) and (3).
It is fundamental 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 general, terms in a
claim are to be given their ordinary and accustomed meaning;
general descriptive terms will ordinarily be given their full
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007