Appeal No. 2002-0027
Application No. 08/963,812
Appellant argues that even if the combination proposed by
the examiner were made, the rejection would still be improper
because the membrane taught by Wood is not the claimed membrane,
i.e., an “arcuate” membrane. Appellant characterizes the membrane
of Wood as being a dome-shaped membrane and urges that the claim
recitation of an “arcuate membrane” does not encompass dome-
shaped membranes. We do not agree.
Before the USPTO, when evaluating claim language during
examination of the application, the examiner is required to give
the terminology of a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, and to remember that the claim
language cannot be read in a vacuum, but instead must be read in
light of the specification as it would have been interpreted by
one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. See In re Sneed, 710
F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Bond,
910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and In
re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir.
1997). In applying those precepts to the present case, the
examiner has determined that the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification that may be
applied to the terminology “arcuate membrane” is that such
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007