Appeal No. 2001-2198
Application 09/378,802
The claimed subject matter may be further understood with
reference to claims 1 and 9 as appended to appellant’s brief.
The references of record relied upon as evidence of
anticipation and obviousness are:
Osborne et al. (Osborne) 5,896,145 Apr. 20, 1999
Taylor et al. (Taylor) 5,980,018 Nov. 9, 1999
(filed July 3, 1996)
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anitcipated
by Osborne.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Taylor.
For the complete statement of the examiner’s rejection,
reference is made to the examiner’s answer. Reference is also
made to the appeal brief and reply brief for the appellant’s
response thereto.
OPINION
As was held in In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997):
the PTO applies to the verbiage of the
proposed claims the broadest reasonable
meaning of the words in their ordinary usage
as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into
account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded
by the written description contained in the
applicant's specification.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007