Appeal No. 2000-0930
Application No. 08/888,339
In the decision, we affirmed the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-3 and
12-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102; we reversed the decision of the examiner to reject claims
4 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102; we affirmed the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 25 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and we reversed the decision of the examiner
to reject claims 5-11 and 17-24, 26 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With this said, appellant argues that we misapprehended the scope of
appellant’s claims, and the independent claims 1 and 12 “require two-dimensional
imaging.” (See Request for Rehearing at page 3.) Appellant argues that In re Sneed,
710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990) provide guidance as to interpreting
the claims in light of appellant’s specification. We agree with appellant that claims must
be interpreted in light of the disclosed invention, but we are not willing to extend the
interpretation of elements and limitations that are neither impliedly set forth in the
language of the claim nor expressly recited in the disclosed invention. Appellant has
not identified what specific language in the claims is to be interpreted to limit the
claimed invention to two dimensional imaging. While appellant cites to various
occurrences in the specification of a “scanning device” (Request for Rehearing at pages
4-7), we do not agree that these disclosures change the scope of the claimed invention.
Appellant argues that we found that Vogeley discloses only a one dimensional image,
but that “scanning” involves two dimensional images. (See Request for Rehearing at
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007