Appeal No. 2002-0639 Page 4
Application No. 09/372,602
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bingham in view of Hedblom ‘746.
4. Claims 21 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Bingham in view of Hedblom ‘746 and further in view of Hedblom ‘221.
5. Claims 1-3, 9-19, 23, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Bingham in view of Anders.
6. Claims 1-3, 9-16, 18, 19, 23, and 26-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bingham.
7. Claims 34 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Bingham in view of Kozak.
8. Claim 41 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bingham in
view of Hedblom ‘746 and further in view of Kozak.
OPINION
We affirm with respect to the rejection of claims 34 and 39 over Bingham in view of
Kozak (Rejection #7 above) and extend that rejection to claims 1 and 10. We denominate our
affirmance as involving a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(2002). With
respect to all the other rejections made by the Examiner, we reverse.
The major disagreement in this case is one of claim interpretation. During patent
examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In re Van Geuns,
988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The words are generally given
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007