Appeal No. 2005-1586
Application No. 10/317,530
The Examiner entered the following rejections:1
1. Claims 1, 4, 5 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gagliardi.
2. Claims 2, 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gagliardi as applied to claims 1, 4, 5 and 7-14 and further in
view of Pirrotta, Fazzolare, Hamann, Cremer or Bosley.
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art,
including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellant in
support of their respective positions. Based upon our review we agree with the
Examiner’s obviousness determination.2
We start with the claim language. 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). In
proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), claims must
be interpreted by giving words their broadest reasonable meanings in their
ordinary usage, taking into account the written description found in the
specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed.
1 The Examiner’s reasons for rejecting the claims appear in the Office Action mailed May 29, 2003.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007