Appeal 2006-2776
Application 09/970,279
these questions in the negative and affirm the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection for the reasons set forth in the Answer as further explained below.
Representative claim 21 is not as limited as Appellants’ contentions
and arguments would seem to suggest. Representative claim 21 does not
require reactant inlets and a light source configured such that reactants from
separate inlets are intersected and combined prior to the combined reactants
being intersected by a beam from a light source, as argued by Appellants.
Rather, all that is required respecting the light source configuration relative
to the reactant path and reactants is “a light source that is configured to
direct a light beam at the combined reactants along the reactant path” (see
Appealed claim 21). After all, it is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the
PTO, claims in an application are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and that claim language
should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). However, limitations are not to be read into the
claims from the specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184,
26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Here, the claimed arrangement is open to having the light source
configured to direct a light beam in other ways than seemingly argued by
Appellants (Reply Br. 2-4). For example, representative claim 21
encompasses arrangements wherein the light source is configured such that
the beam intersects separately introduced reactants both before and after
they are combined along a reactant path, and/or such that the beam intersects
reactants at the very point along the reactant path where separately
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013