Interference 103,482
interpreted the language with which Dolle defines the subject
matter claimed so to include impossibilities, and/or
reasonably would have construed what appears to be functional
language in a manner entirely inconsistent with the demands of
35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, 35 U.S.C. § 101, and the common sense for
which persons having ordinary skill in the art have been
recognized. Because Ewen’s reading of the words and phrases
in Dolle’s claims is inconsistent with a fair reading of
Dolle’s specification, prosecution history, art-recognized
definitions, and common sense, we must deny Ewen’s motion for
judgment of Dolle’s claims unpatentable under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Given our interpretation of the
scope of the subject matter claimed, we must also deny Ewen’s
motions for judgment that the subject matter Dolle claims is
unpatentable under either the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §
112 or 35 U.S.C. § 101.
C. Ewen’s Motion for Benefit of the July 15,
1988, filing date of Application 07/220,007,
now U.S. Patent 4,892,851
113
Page: Previous 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007