Appeal No. 1998-0491
Application 08/125,002
At the outset, we note that, in addressing the twelve
independent claims 27, 29, 33, 35, 37, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46,
and 47 of varying scope, the examiner has relied upon a single
patent to Reik. In assessing the content of these claims, we
give language therein its broadest reasonable interpretation;
the language being read in light of the underlying disclosure.
Additionally, in assessing the process language of the article
claims during this ex parte appeal, we take into account as
limitations of the claimed subject matter, features imparted
to the article by the process, and not the steps of the
process itself; in other words, the determination of
patentability is based upon the article itself. See Atlantic
Thermoplastics Co. v. Faytex Corp., 970 F.2d 834, 845-46, 23
USPQ2d 1481, 1490-91 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We turn now to a consideration of each of the independent
claims on appeal relative to the applied prior art.
At this juncture, it is noted that the apparatus of the
Reik patent (Fig. 2), relied upon by the examiner, includes,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007