Appeal No. 2003-0785
Application 09/457,816
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 for
essentially the reasons argued by the examiner in the answer. We
agree with the examiner that the dielectric liquid crystal
substrate of appellants’ invention does not perform the functions
of positioning a transducer or providing electrical connection
between the transducer and an external circuit. Even though we
agree with appellants that claim 1 must be construed in
accordance with the requirements of the sixth paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112, the general rule still applies that during
prosecution claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation. We see no reason why the dielectric liquid
crystal substrate should be read into claim 1 when the conducting
means of claim 1 can be met by the disclosed electrical traces as
argued by the examiner. Therefore, the scope of claim 1 is broad
enough to be fully met by the disclosure of Boutaghou.
We now consider the rejection of claims 2-12 and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the teachings of Boutaghou and Lambert.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon
the examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073,
5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the examiner
is expected to make the factual determinations set forth in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007