Appeal No. 1999-2330
Application No. 08/219,200
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied references, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the noted rejections, we make reference to the Examiner's
Answer for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellants’
Brief and Reply Brief for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Claim Interpretation
Our appellate reviewing court stated in Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
810 F.2d 1561, 1567-1568, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir. 1987):
Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the
invention claimed? Courts are required to view the claimed
invention as a whole. 35 U.S.C. 103. Claim interpretation,
in light of the specification, claim language, other claims and
prosecution history, is a matter of law and will normally
control the remainder of the decisional process. [Footnote
omitted.]
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007