Appeal 2006-2320
Application 10/061,830
a controller adapted to monitor a rate of fuel consumption at the anode
and to control the fuel supply means to supply droplets at a rate that results
in a fuel layer being maintained on the anode.
The resolution of the principal issues in the grounds of rejection
involving these three claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a) advanced
on appeal requires that the subject claim language must first be interpreted
by giving the claim terms their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the written description provided in Appellants’ Specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this art. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (A[T]he
PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable
meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by
the written description contained in the applicant=s specification.@); In re
Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1192-95, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-50 (Fed.
Cir. 1994) (en banc) (A[T]he >broadest reasonable interpretation= that an
examiner may give means-plus-function language is that statutorily
mandated in [35 U.S.C. ' 112,] paragraph six.”); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (ADuring patent
examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms
reasonably allow. When the applicant states the meaning that the claim terms
are intended to have, the claims are examined with that meaning, in order to
achieve a complete exploration of the applicant=s invention and its relation
to the prior art. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541,
550-51 (CCPA 1969).@).
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007