Appeal No. 2005-0232
Application No. 10/169,818
Furthermore, 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). Also, 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).
In the instant case, appellant’s claims are directed to a
device, and it is the claimed structure of the device at issue
here. The difference argued by appellants, however, is a
difference in how the display screen is operated. While Yatsu
describes a different sequence for turning the pixels of the
described LCD screen on and off, it is reasonable to conclude
that the screen of Yatsu is capable of operating in the manner
claimed by appellants. That is all that is required for a prima
facie case of anticipation under the instant facts because when
the prior art structure possesses all the claimed
characteristics, including the capability of performing the
claimed function, then there is a prima facie case of
unpatentability. See In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64, 169
USPQ 563, 566-67 (CCPA 1971). Appellants may overcome the prima
facie case by showing that, in fact, there is a patentable
difference between the claimed device structure and the prior
art structure. Id. Appellants have not, on this record,
connected any specific structure, to the operation that is
claimed, much less provided evidence of a difference between the
underlying structure of the display screen of the claims and
that of Yatsu.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007