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