Ex parte KOSLEY JR. et al. - Page 6




          Appeal No. 1997-2188                                                        
          Application 08/137,440                                                      
          adequately teach how to use the claimed invention.  Claim 30                
          is rejected under 35 U.S.C.  112, second paragraph, on the                 
          grounds that the claim does not distinctly claim the subject                
          matter which appellants regard as their invention.                          
                                       OPINION                                        
               We have carefully considered the entire record before us,              
          including the well-argued positions taken by both the examiner              
          and the appellants.  We find, however, that the examiner has                
          failed to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability under              
          the relevant statutes as the statutes have been interpreted by              
          our reviewing courts.  Accordingly, for reasons expressed                   
          fully below, we shall reverse each of the examiner's stated                 
          rejections.                                                                 
                                     THE CLAIMS                                       
               Our analysis of the issues before us begins with a                     
          determination of the scope and content of what appellants                   
          claim as their invention.  As claims pending in a yet to be                 
          patented application, we must give the claims their broadest,               
          reasonable interpretation, consistent with appellants'                      
          disclosure as said disclosure would have been understood by a               
          person of ordinary skill in the art at the time appellants                  
          made their invention, but without importing limitations from                
                                          6                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007