Appeal No. 1998-1387 Page 6
Application No. 08/208,791
interpretation that the “claimed adjusting means [in claim 21]
has the same function
as exposure controlling means in claim 1.” (Examiner’s Answer
at 10.) Therefore, we consider the claims to stand or fall
together in the following groups:
• claims 1, 11, 12, and 21
• claims 10, 18, and 20
• claims 13 and 19.
We select claims 1, 10, and 13 to represent the respective
groups. Next, we address the obviousness of the claims.
Obviousness of the Claims
We begin by finding that the references represent the
level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57
F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
(finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interference did
not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill was
best determined by the references of record); In re Oelrich,
579 F.2d 86, 91, 198 USPQ 210, 214 (CCPA 1978) ("[T]he PTO
usually must evaluate ... the level of ordinary skill solely
on the cold words of the literature."). Of course, “‘[e]very
patent application and reference relies to some extent upon
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007