Appeal No. 96-3603 Page 2
Application No. 08/243,839
all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Appellant's
admitted prior art (Figures 5 and 6) and:
Ukai et al. (Ukai) 5,068,748 26 Nov. 1991
Our conclusion of obviousness was based in part on our finding
that a diode, such as those taught in Ukai, would meet the
claim requirement for an opening structure. According to
Appellant,
The Board then asserted that it would have been
obvious to combine the diodes of Ukai with the
structure of the admitted prior art in order to
result in the claimed invention. The fundamental
error in this analysis is that Ukai does not teach
or suggest the use of an "opening structure" as
claimed because diodes, which are structures that
prevent the transmission of electrical current in a
single direction, are not suggestive of opening
structures that prevent the transmission of
electrical current in either direction.
(Paper No. 19 at 1.) Note that Appellant is not contesting
the combination but rather the finding that diodes are opening
structures and the claim construction that permits that
finding.
DISCUSSION
As we noted in our decision (Paper No. 18 at 2), during
prosecution a claim must be construed as broadly as is
reasonably possible in light of the disclosure and the related
prior art. E.g., In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). This practice reflects the broad
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007