Appeal No. 1999-2019
Application No. 08/646,810
Kojima discloses that line sensor 1 is exposed at least subsequent to the relative
movement related to the “initial calibration” -- we add, for that matter, that line sensor 1 is
exposed subsequent to the relative movement related to any prior scan which has been
completed.
We are thus unconvinced that the requirements of claim 10 are not disclosed or
suggested by the applied prior art. We recognize that appellants’ disclosed “relative
movements” may be different from the “relative movements” disclosed by Kojima, but the
broad terms of claim 10 do not set forth the distinctions. Claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution, and the scope of a claim cannot be
narrowed by reading disclosed limitations into the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ
541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
Independent Claim 22, although drawn to a process, is similar to claim 10 in its
recitations of “a relative movement.” Appellants rely on the arguments presented for claim
10 (see Brief, page 10), and we sustain the rejection of claim 22.
Appellants submit separate arguments for two groups of dependent claims on
pages 11 and 12 of the Brief. We agree, with respect to each group, that the references
fail to establish prima facie obviousness of the relevant subject matter. Claims 23, 29, 27,
32, and 38 depend from base claims having rejections which we have not sustained, and
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007