Appeal No. 2002-1205
Application No. 09/422,380
The examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Akashi et al. (Akashi) 3,481,875 Dec. 2, 1969
Yamanaka* JP 04-1600035 Jun. 3, 1992
(Kokai Japanese Patent Publication)
(*We rely on the English translation provided in Paper No. 12, translated by
Schreiber Translations, Inc.)
OPINION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112 second paragraph rejection
As a preliminary matter, we observe that on page 2 of the
specification, the examiner has indicated that the 35 U.S.C. §112
rejection of claims 1 and 6 has been withdrawn because of the
proposed changes to Figure 4 (the proposed changes to Figure 4 appear
in the amendment of Paper No. 6 (i.e., amendment filed on February
26, 2001)). Upon return of this application to the jurisdiction of
the examiner, appellants must submit a formal drawing having the
proposed changes therein for proper entry of such drawing.
With regard to claims 2, 4, 5, and 7, the examiner states that x
and y are indefinite because x and y are not defined.
We note that during patent examination, the pending claims must
be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 320, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In
determining the patentability of claims, the PTO gives claim language
its “broadest reasonable interpretation” consistent with the
specification and claims. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44
USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(citations omitted).
In the present case, Figure 4, which is part of the original
disclosure, shows values for x and y. Also, values for x and y are
set forth on pages 5-9 of appellants’ specification. The qualifying
equation recited in claim 2, for example, is therefore understood in
light of these values set forth in figure 4 and on pages 5-9 of the
specification. We therefore reverse the rejection with respect to
claims 2 and 7.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007