Interference No. 104,693
Preputnick v. Provencher
re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983); see also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320,
1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1404, 181
USPQ 641, 645 (CCPA 1974); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162
USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969). Note the following passage in In re
Priest, 582 F.2d 33, 37, 199 USPQ 11, 15 (CCPA 1978):
It is clear that the board did not consider the claimed
invention to be allowable, but instead found some other
non-claimed invention containing 'inferential
limitations" to comply with the statute . . . .
Thus, the board was in error when it added an
ýinferential limitation" to the claims. That error
requires corrective action by this court.
What Preputnick would have us do is to add the qualifier
'type of' or 'kind of" between the words 'first and second" and
the word ýcontacts" to arrive at the reformed term -- first and
second type of contacts -- , or -- first and second kind of
contacts The evidence in the record does not support such a
contortion of the English language. Preputnick's contention not
only does not reflect the broadest reasonable interpretation of
the claim term ýfirst and second contacts" but urges an
interpretation that is patently unreasonable.
Preputnick refers to U.S. Patent No. 5,174,770 ('the Sasaki
patent") as illustrating real or genuine ýfirst and second
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007