Appeal No. 2001-2201
Application .09/065, 997
Examiner, we make reference to the Briefs1 and the Answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of Appellant
and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejections of claim 1, 4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
and affirm the rejection of claims 5, 27, 28 and 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is the
claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In addition, claims are to be interpreted
as the terms reasonably allow. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321,
13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Independent claim 1 recites “a confocal microscope
1
1Appellant filed an appeal brief on February 2, 2001, Paper
No. 16. In response to the Examiner’s Answer, Paper No. 17,
mailed April 19, 2001, the Appellants filed a Reply Brief on June
21, 2001, Paper No. 18. The Examiner mailed an office
communication on December 7, 2001, Paper No. 20, stating that the
reply brief has been entered and considered.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007