Appeal No. 1998-1655 Page 15
Application No. 08/367,766
Because the projections are fixed, we are not persuaded
that Yamada discloses or would have suggested the limitations
of "a movable member with which said first main surface of
said cartridge is brought into contact and a spring member for
pressing said movable member against the first main surface,
so that, due to force exerted by said spring member, said
cartridge is held and pressed between said movable member and
an inner wall surface of said holder means which serves as
said reference surface." Therefore, we reverse the rejection1
of claim 3 as anticipated by or as obvious over Yamada. We
next address claim 4.
Claim 4
The appellants argue, "Yamada show two pins 10, 10' ...."
(Appeal Br. at 9.) The examiner responds, "Yamada et al's
positioning pins 10, 10' include four surfaces for contacting
1We see no inconsistency between this conclusion and the
rule that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) should
give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during
prosecution. “The operative word is reasonable: the PTO has
no such obligation regarding unreasonable interpretations.”
Genentech, Inc. v. Wellcome Found. Ltd., 29 F.3d 1555, 1564
n.22, 31 USPQ2d 1161, 1168 n.22 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007