Appeal No. 1999-2817
Application 08/819,587
2. We do not agree with appellants’ views that the examiner’s
earlier-noted two cases scenario is inapposite. Appellants’
argument that the earlier quoted claim language is unambiguous is
misplaced. As expanded upon in this opinion, the examiner’s
views in the final rejection and answer merely endeavor to
appreciate the scope of the term “acceptable” as a broadly used
term in independent claims 1 and 13 on appeal. Moreover,
appellants’ urging that we refer to the specification because the
examiner’s views are wholly against the claim language when
interpreted in light of the specification is also misplaced.
First, this is an invitation for us to read into the claim
disclosed but unclaimed features. Clearly, we will not do this.
Secondly, if the claims are so unambiguous, there is no need and
no basis in law for us to determine the scope of meaning of
unambiguous claim language by reference to the specification.
Appellants cannot have it both ways.
Since appellants’ reply brief does not address the
additional arguments in the answer as to the other dependent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007