Appeal No. 1998-0204
Application 08/501,542
current applications overlap each other, they are
operating simultaneously). The Examiner is at a
loss to explain how the Appellants interpretation of
Sampietro et al (US 5,361,182), given the examples
cited by the Appellants, cannot fall within the
scope of the claimed invention. (Bold emphasis
added.) (Answer-pages 5 and 6.)
We agree with the Examiner, and it appears that
Appellants agree, that Sampietro does require the two currents
to be acting simultaneously. However, Appellants’ point is
that the two simultaneous currents of Sampietro do not
necessarily begin simultaneously as claimed. It is clear from
the claim language that one current begins when the other
current begins. But, does when mean exactly and precisely at
the same instant in time? Clearly, a person may enter a room
when the door is opened. However, if the door is not opened
slightly before entering, the person would walk into the door.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is
the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d
1523,1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). During prosecution, the Patent
and Trademark Office is required to give claims their
"broadest reasonable interpretation", consistent with the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007