Appeal No. 2001-2664
Application 09/354,814
As 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.
The appellants’ specification provides only general guidance as
to the proper interpretation of the claim term “library” as it
appears in the claims on appeal. According to appellants,
Automated data cartridge library systems are available
in many shapes and sizes. The most common library
systems are configured as either a two-dimensional
array of storage cells that resemble bookshelves, or a
cylinder of storage cells that resemble farm silos.
(Specification, page 1)
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that “each and
every element as set forth in the claim is found, either
expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949,
1950 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil
Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007