Appeal No. 2006-0681
Application No. 09/072,412
are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277
F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant argues at
page 7-9 of the brief, that the method proposed by the Examiner
in the combination of Bartlett and Murayama would be time
consuming to adjust and would produce inferior results
(distortions and noise). Appellant contrasts this to their
simpler invention that produces superior results. We find
Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Appellant does not point to any limitation in claim 1 that
corresponds to either the simpler invention or the superior
results. Our review of claim 1 finds no limitation that is
missing from the combination of the references. That the
combination produces an inferior result to Appellant’s disclosed
invention is of no relevance. Our focus must begin and remain on
the claims. “[T]he name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker
Co., 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
In the reply brief at pages 8-9, Appellant also points to
the need for use of an analyzer (or improved result from using)
in Bartlett. As above, we find no limitation in claim 1 that
precludes an analyzer. Appellant is arguing a limitation that is
not claimed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007