Appeal No. 1999-1854
Application No. 08/633,616
limitations which are not disclosed by the Fujii reference, an
assertion with which we agree.
Contrary to the Examiner’s contention at page 4 of the
Answer that only a signal generator in communication with a
diaphragm drive circuit and timer is being claimed, it is
apparent from a reading of the language of the claims on
appeal that a specific charge/discharge/subsequent charge
sequence performed by the claimed timer and signal generator
is set forth. 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, 985, 180 USPQ 580, 583 (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 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970).
We note that a relevant portion of independent claim 1
recites:2
said signal generator applies a subsequent
charge signal after said predetermined interval
to displace said diaphragm to contact said
2Similar recitations appear in claims 9, 13, and 21, the
other independent claims on appeal.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007