Appeal No. 1998-2854 Page 6
Application No. 08/500,278
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 4-12, and reply brief,
pp. 2-4) that the applied prior art does not suggest the
claimed subject matter. We agree.
All the claims under appeal require an air pressure
regulator capable of automatically cycling the output air
pressure between a lower preselected pressure and a higher
preselected pressure wherein the lower preselected pressure is
preselected from a range of pressures having a lower limit at
least sufficient to maintain peripheral vascular resistance in
the body areas of the patient covered by the encircling
bladders.
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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007