Appeal No. 2006-2205 Page 8
Application No. 10/699,956
film that includes sPP homopolymer as a primary component as
argued in the reply brief.
During prosecution of a patent application, the claims
therein are given the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, as we noted above. See
Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 1460 n.3, 43 USPQ2d
1030, 1032, 1035 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Moreover, concerning appellants’ arguments as to that which
is known in the art as to the contested claim language, it is
well settled that counsel's unsupported arguments in the brief
are no substitute for objective evidence. In re Pearson, 494
F.2d 1399, 1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA 1974).
It follows that we shall affirm the examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claims 43, 44, 48, 52, 53, 56, 64 and 66-71 for the
reasons set forth above and in the answer.
§ 103(a) Rejection
Concerning the examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 45-
47, 49-51, 54, 55, 57-63 and 65 over Shamshoum, we note that
appellants do not argue against the examiner’s obviousness
determinations with regard to these dependent claims other than
to make the same arguments against this rejection as were made
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007