Appeal No. 1998-2342 Page 2
Application No. 08/505,739
The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the appealed claims
are:
Tanaka 4,894,132 Jan. 16, 1990
Hurwitt et al. (Hurwitt) 4,957,605 Sep. 18, 1990
Sasaki JP 04-329876 Nov. 18, 1992
Tepman EP 0 634 782 Jan. 18, 1995
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
anticipated by Tepman. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Tepman and Sasaki in view of Tanaka and Hurwitt. Appellants divide the claims into three groups
typified by independent claims 1, 14, and 20 (Brief, page 5) and provide separate arguments for each
of these groups. We, therefore, select claims 1, 14, and 20 for consideration of the issues on appeal.
We affirm the rejections with respect to the subject matter of claims 1, 14 and claims 2-8 and 15-19
which stand or fall therewith, but reverse with respect to the subject matter of claim 20 and claims 9-13
which stand or fall with claim 20. Our reasons follow.
OPINION
A preliminary step to every analysis of patentability involves interpreting the claims. During
patent examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In re Van Geuns,
988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim language
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007