Appeal No. 1997-2149
Application No. 08/019,666
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 29,
mailed April 15, 1996) and the Supplemental Examiner's Answer
(Paper No. 31, mailed September 4, 1996) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and to
appellants' Brief (Paper No. 27, filed March 27, 1996) and
Reply Brief (Paper No. 30, filed June 12, 1996) for
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1,
2, and 5.
"'[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every
application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what
each claim defines is patentable.'" In re Hiniker Co., 150
F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
(quoting Giles S. Rich, The Extent of the Protection and
Interpretation of Claims --American Perspectives, 21 Int'l
Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. 497, 499, 501 (1990)). In
interpreting claims, "limitations are not to be read into the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007