Appeal No. 2002-0652
Application No. 08/465,072
Appellant (Reply Brief, pages 8-9 and 65-67) argues that the
examiner's rejection does not construe the claims as required by
Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 43 USPQ2d 1030 (Fed. Cir.
1997). The courts review an adverse decision of the Board, 35
U.S.C. §§ 141 and 145, not the examiner's rejection. The central
thrust of Gechter is that the Board must explain the basis for
its rulings sufficiently to enable meaningful judicial review.
See In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1371, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1666 (Fed.
Cir. 2000). Gechter does not require that claims always be
construed. Express claim construction is only required where the
scope and meaning of limitations are in question. It is
unnecessary and impractical to expressly interpret every claim
limitation in every claim when there is no question as to what is
meant. The examiner did not err by giving the claim limitations
their ordinary meaning and by not expressly construing each claim
limitation. Moreover, appellant merely alleges that the claims
have to be construed without saying how the claim construction
would affect the rejections. Clearly, this is a "boilerplate"
procedural attack that is not tied to the actual rejections.
Appellant concludes (Brief, pages 41-44) that the written
description rejections do not establish a prima facie case,
because the examiner has provided no proper explanation or
reasoning regarding the adequacy of the disclosure, and the
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007