Appeal No. 2006-0180 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/369,343
rooms to be operating rooms as that terminology is used in the art. While it is true that
the claims in a patent application are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification during prosecution of a patent application
(see, for example, In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989)), it is also well settled that terms in a claim should be construed as those skilled in
the art would construe them (see Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981,
986, 6 USPQ2d 1601, 1604 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016,
194 USPQ 187, 194 (CCPA 1977).
Inasmuch as Morris fails to disclose an operating room with an operating table
therein, the subject matter of claim 1 is not anticipated by Morris. It follows that we
cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1.
In rejecting claim 2, which recites that the set of primary rails is connected to the
ceiling of the operating room, the examiner determines that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant's invention "to have modified
Morris to have located the primary set of rails on the ceiling as taught by Tachi for the
purpose of allowing the operating room user the optimum amount of space below the
rails for assisting patients" (answer, page 5). Be that as it may, such modification of
Morris would not remedy the deficiency of Morris noted above, namely, the lack of any
disclosure in Morris of an operating room having an operating table therein.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007