Appeal No. 2004-2019
Application No. 10/301,441 Page 6
PAK, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority. I would affirm
the examiner’s Sections 102(b) and 103(a) rejections. My reasons
follow.
The question as to whether Knifton would have rendered the
claimed subject matter anticipated within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) or obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103
is dependent on proper construction of the scope of the claims on
appeal. As such, I must first properly determine the meaning of
the disputed claim language in the claims on appeal to determine
their scope. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 1460
n.3, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032, 1035 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir.
1994). I am mindful that during prosecution of a patent
application, the words in claims are given the broadest
reasonable meaning in their ordinary usage, taking into account
the written description found in the specification. See In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007