Appeal No. 1997-2372
Application 08/083,945
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the Examiner's
Answer (Paper No. 25, mailed October 30, 1995) and Supplemental Examiner’s Answer
(Paper No. 28, mailed February 28, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 24, filed July 24, 1995) and
Reply Brief (Paper No. 26, filed January 2, 1996) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Claim Interpretation
Our appellate reviewing court stated in Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
810 F.2d 1561, 1567-1568, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir.), cert denied, 481 U.S.
1052 (1987):
Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the
invention claimed? Courts are required to view the claimed
invention as a whole. 35 U.S.C. 103. Claim interpretation, in
light of the specification, claim language, other claims, and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007