Appeal No. 1998-1669
Application No. 08/508,563
column 2, lines 48-49.) Again, notwithstanding the
appellant’s proposed interpretation, it is not clear as to why
the examiner’s interpretation would be inappropriate in this
instance. We therefore determine that one skilled in the art
would be unable to ascertain the scope of recitation (ii).
Although the examiner’s interpretation is in direct
conflict with the appellant’s interpretation as stated in the
briefs, it is not inconsistent with the appellant’s
specification. That is, the specification does not contain
any description that would preclude the examiner’s
interpretation. By the same token, we think that the
appellant’s interpretation is also not inconsistent with the
specification. Since appealed claim 1 can be reasonably
interpreted in two conflicting ways, one skilled in the
relevant art would be unable to determine the scope of
appealed claim 1. To decide which interpretation is correct
would require us to engage in unwarranted speculation as to
the meanings of terms and assumptions as to the scope of the
appealed claims.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007