Appeal No. 1997-1676
Application No. 08/255,010
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments and evidence
advanced by the examiner and appellant in support of their
respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that
the examiner’s rejections are not well founded. We will not
sustain each of the foregoing rejections for those claim
interpretation and reasons set forth in the Brief. We add the
following primarily for emphasis.
In determining patentability of the claimed subject
matter, all limitations, including the claim language
“predetermined”, in claim 1 must be considered. Cf. In re
Geerdes, 491 F.2d 1260, 1262, 180 USPQ 789, 791 (CCPA 1974).
When the term “predetermined” in claim 1 is given its broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with pages 1 through 7 of
the specification, we agree with appellant that it means
“determined in advance”. However, neither the claims of
Application 08/342,636 nor the content of Manning describes
determining a fractional area for the distribution of current
flow in advance based on the total area to be treated as
required by claim 1, steps (a) through (c). Accordingly, we
are constrained to agree with appellant that the examiner has
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007