Appeal No. 2002-1744 Page 3
Application No. 09/179,793
Claim 36 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by U.S. Patent
No. 5,940,354 ("Inoue").
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
address the main point of contention therebetween. The examiner asserts, "Inoue . . .
teaches in column 14, lines 52-62 that when the extended drawer is left unattended for
a given period, the drawer is automatically withdrawn back into the device, thus
requiring no additional actuation of the drawer extension regulation means."
(Examiner's Answer at 5.) "What [the] appellants have argued, and continue to argue,
is that Inoue simply does not teach a system wherein the drawer, once extended, can
be manually returned to the retracted position without requiring additional actuation of
the drawer extension regulator." (Reply Br. at 4.)
"Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). In answering the question, "the Board must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction. . . ." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007