Ex parte WANDMACHER et al. - Page 6




         Appeal No. 1998-2981                                                      
         Application No. 08/763,390                                                


         claim, words of the claim are generally given their ordinary              
         and accustomed meaning unless it appears from the                         
         specification or the file history that they were used                     
         differently by the inventor.  Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro              
         Mechanical Sys., Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1577, 27 USPQ2d 1836,                
         1840.  Although an inventor is indeed free to define the                  
         specific terms used to describe his or her invention, this                
         must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and                 
         precision.  In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671,            
         1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994).                                                    


              In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner              
         bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of              
         obviousness (see In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d            
         1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,                
         1446, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)), which is                    
         established when the teachings of the prior art itself would              
         appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of             
         ordinary skill in the art (see In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783,             
         26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).                                   

                                         6                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007