Appeal No. 1998-1965 Page 11
Application No. 08/357,325
The appellants argue that since Miller's glazing trim is
cut into pieces which are then separately attached to the
frame in butting relationship, Miller does not teach or
suggest the claimed dominant component and secondary component
as recited in claims 1, 11 and 18. In that regard, the
appellants point out that Miller's glazing trim pieces are not
interconnected to form a frame defining the claimed light
transmitting port. In fact, the appellants point out that
Miller teaches to specifically avoid the fabrication of frames
(see column 1, lines 8-20, and column 4, lines 1-9, of
Miller).
In view of the contrary positions taken by the examiner
and the appellants concerning the teachings of Miller, it is
essential for us to properly determine the scope of claims 1, 2
11 and 18.
2In 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).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007