Appeal No. 1997-4027
Application No. 08/300,111
THE REJECTION
The Examiner entered the following ground of rejection:
Claims 1, 3, 10 and 11 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over the combination of Anderson and Narita. (Examiner’s Answer, page 3).
OPINION
Appellants have indicated (Brief, page 3) that, for the purposes of this appeal, the
claims will stand or fall together in the following groups: Group I (claims 1 and 11),
Group II (claim 3) and Group III (claim 10). Accordingly, we will select one claim
from each group as representative of all of the claims on appeal from that group. See
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1995). Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136,
137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
Our initial inquiry is directed to the scope of the claimed subject matter. During
patent prosecution, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, and the claim language is to be read in view of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007