Appeal No. 1997-2683
Application No. 08/590,016
In response, Appellants assert (Brief, page 3) that
Shutt’s mirror is held within the toilet bowl and does not
face the toilet bowl as claimed. We agree. Although an
Examiner is permitted some latitude in interpreting a prior
art reference for application against claim language, we can
conceive of no reasonable interpretation of Shutt which would
lead to the conclusion that Shutt’s mirror is held “in front
of the exterior surface of the toilet bowl in a position
facing the toilet bowl” as required by Appellants’ claim 1.
We further consider to be unfounded the Examiner’s
assertion that the language “placeable along the front
edge...toilet bowl” and “for holding...toilet bowl” which
appears in the body of Appellants’ claim 1 can be
characterized as statements of intended use and thereby
disregarded when determining patentability. Our reviewing
courts have held that, in assessing patentability of a claimed
invention, all the claim limitations must be suggested or
taught by the prior art. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 983, 180
USPQ 580, 582 (CCPA 1974). All words in a claim must be
considered in judging the patentability of that claim against
the prior art. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1282, 1385, 165 USPQ
- -5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007