Appeal No. 2000-2156 Page 4
Application No. 08/431,727
No. 3,884,905 issued May 20, 1975 to Bodor; (V) the declaration of Patrick P. Deluca,
executed July 30, 1999; the declaration of Anwar A. Hussain, executed July 30, 1999;
and the declaration of Nicholas S. Bodor, executed February 1, 1993.
On consideration of the record, including the above-listed materials, we reverse
the examiner’s prior art and non-prior art rejections.
Discussion
Initially, we emphasize that this tribunal serves to review cases on appeal; the
board does not engage in de novo examination of patent applications ("The Board of
Patent Appeals and Interferences shall, on written appeal of an applicant, review
adverse decisions of examiners upon applications for patents ."). 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Here, the rejections presented for review do not rise to the level of superficial plausibility
and we shall not belabor the record with extensive comments. We reverse the
examiner’s prior art and non-prior art rejections for reasons succinctly set forth in
applicant’s principal brief, and we add the following the following comments for
emphasis only.
It is well settled that a patent applicant may, within reason, be his own
lexicographer. Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 888, 221 USPQ
1025, 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Fromson v. Advance Offset Plate, Inc., 720 F.2d 1565,
1569, 219 USPQ 1137, 1140 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Furthermore, in proceedings before the
PTO, claims in an application are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, and claim language should be read in light of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007