Appeal No. 2004-1704
Application No. 10/225,994
I & III. Rejections Based on Takanishi Alone
and Takanashi in View of Reede
With regard to appealed claim 1, the appellant’s only
argument against the examiner’s determination of anticipation is
that Takanashi does not disclose a sensor having a shoulder
“abutting a second face” of the backing plate. (Appeal brief at
4.) Specifically, it is the appellant’s position that the term
“a second face” as recited in appealed claim 1 cannot reasonably
be interpreted to read on Takanashi’s stepped face 15A as shown
in Figure 2. (Id.; see also reply brief filed Feb. 24, 2004,
paper 12, page 1.)
We cannot agree with the appellant on this issue. It is
well settled that, in proceedings before the PTO, claims in an
application must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation, taking into account any enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise found in the specification. In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
Our reviewing court has provided guidance on the mode of
claim interpretation during patent prosecution as follows:
During patent examination the pending claims must
be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably
allow. When the applicant states the meaning that the
claim terms are intended to have, the claims are
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007