Appeal No. 2006-1439
Application No. 10/195,178
Claims 1, 3, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Masumoto.2 We reverse.
The initial inquiry in determining the propriety of the Examiner’s
§ 102(b) rejection is to correctly construe the scope of the claimed
subject matter. Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 1460 n.3,
43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 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 & Trademark Office (USPTO), claims must be interpreted by
giving words their broadest reasonable meaning 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. Cir. 1997).
Applying these principles, we note that appealed claim 1 recites:
1. A method for increasing damping of a magnetic material within
a magnetic device, said magnetic material comprising an alloy, said
method comprising adding to said alloy at least one transition metal
selected from the group consisting of 4d transition metals and 5d
transition metals in an atomic concentration of about 4% to about 15%
of said alloy, wherein said alloy comprises at least one of Ni-Fe, Co-Fe,
and Ni-Co.
2 Masumoto et al. (Masumoto) U.S. Patent No. 4,204,887 May 27, 1980
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007