Appeal No. 2004-2124
Application No. 09/795,197
any port.” Further, appellant argues, on page 3 of the reply brief, that there is no
motivation to combine the references as “the plurality of universal ports in Bell et al. are
universal transducer ports, not controller ports, and there is no teaching or suggestion
in either of the references of using the universal transducer ports of Bell et al. for the
purpose of a controller port for Nakajima.”
In response, the examiner states, on page 8 of the answer:
Bell et al. was cited as an example that cable ports are well known in the
art. Further[,] as discussed above, Bell et al. disclose that a plurality of
universal ports positioned along opposite sides and/or at opposite ends of
the patient support surface allow electrical connection with optimal
convenience and minimal interference. Therefore[,] it would be [sic, have
been] obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide a plurality of universal
ports in the apparatus of Nakajima, in order to attach the remote external
controller (90) of Nakajima with optimal convenience and minimal
interference as taught by Bell et al.
We disagree with the examiner’s claim interpretation and find that the
combination of the references does not teach the claimed ports. Claims will be given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, limitations
appearing in the specification will not be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d
852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In analyzing the scope of the claim, office
personnel must rely on the appellant’s disclosure to properly determine the meaning of
the terms used in the claims. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967,
980, 34 USPQ2d 1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “[T]he terms used in the claims bear a
“heavy presumption” that they mean what they say and have the ordinary meaning that
would be attributed to those words by persons skilled in the relevant art.” Texas Digital
Sys, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1817 (Fed. Cir.
2002). “Moreover, the intrinsic record also must be examined in every case to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007