Appeal No. 1999-1835
Application No. 08/654,976
VI. claims 13, 15, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of JP '917, JP '712,
and Yamaguchi (id. at pages 14-16).
We affirm rejections I, II, V, and VI but reverse
rejections III and IV.3 Our discussion follows.4
I. Rejection of Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
over Yamaguchi
We start with the claim language. Gechter v. Davidson, 116
F.3d 1454, 1457, 1460 n.3, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032, 1035 n.3 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671,
1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In proceedings before the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office (PTO), claims must be interpreted by giving
words their broadest reasonable meanings in their ordinary
usage, taking into account the written description found in the
action (p. 2) has been withdrawn. (Advisory action of July 14,
1998.)
3 The appellants submit that the appealed claims should be
grouped and considered separately as follows: (I) claims 5-7;
(II) claim 8; (III) claim 10; (IV) claims 13 and 15; and (V)
claims 16 and 18. (Appeal brief, p. 18.) With respect to claim
16, however, the appeal brief does not contain any argument as
to why claim 16 is separately patentable. Accordingly, we
select claims 5, 8, 10, and 13 and decide this appeal as to the
examiner's grounds of rejection on the bases of these claims
only. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1997).
4 Our references to the Japanese patent documents are to
the English language translations found in the record.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007