Appeal No. 2002-2040
Application No. 09/160,490
Furthermore, we must interpret claims in the broadest
reasonable way during examination. Burlington Industries v. Quigg,
822 F.2d 1581, 1583, 3 USPQ2d 1436, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (claims
undergoing examination are given their broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the specification); In re Prater, 415
F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969) (same).
We therefore affirm this rejection.
Summary of Decision
The rejection of claims 5-9 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rowley in view of Traversat, is sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
FRED E. McKELVEY )
Senior Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
SALLY C. MEDLEY )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JAMES T. MOORE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007