Appeal No. 2004-0633
Application No. 10/011,198
OPINION
I. The rejection of claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Yu
The critical issue in this rejection is the meaning of the
claimed phrase, “integrated structure”, as recited in claim 37.
As an initial matter, 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).
Appellants argue that claim 37 requires at least one
integrated structure comprising a first interconnect and an
electrical connector. Appellants argue that Yu is different
from this claimed subject matter because Yu combines two
discrete structures, metal-1 conductor and the metal-2
conductor. Brief, page 3. In the reply brief, appellants
continue to argue that the meaning given by the examiner
regarding the term “integrated” is contrary to the suggested
definition in the specification. Appellants continue to argue
that the specification provides a sufficient definition for the
term “integrated” and, hence, there is no need for the
examiner’s attempts to derive a plain meaning. Finally, on page
4 of the reply brief, appellants refer to Figures 6a, 7a, 8a,
12, and 18 of the specification to support a definition of
“integrated” that is consistent with the specification’s use of
the term “integral”.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007