Appeal 2007-0025 Page 21
Application 09/792,151
Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982).
D. Analysis
We incorporate herein the analysis set forth in the Analysis section for the
rejection of claims 2, 7-9, 15, and 16 above and add the following comment.
We are not persuaded that Appellants have shown error in the rejection.
Appellants take issue with the Examiner’s construction of the claim but the
construction of the claim that Appellants are advocating is not reflected in the
language of the claim. Appellant is arguing a construction of the claim, which
requires for our agreement, that we impermissibly import a limitation into the
claim. Since we may not import limitations into a claim that are inconsistent with
the broadest reasonable construction to be given a claim in light of the
Specification as interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, and Appellants have
not pointed to any language in claim 5 that shows the subject matter to be limited
as argued, we find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive as to error in the rejection.
E. Conclusion of Law
On the record before us, Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 5 and 13 over the prior art.
Claims 3 and 11
Because Appellant argues claims 3 and 11 as a group, pursuant to the rules,
the Board selects representative claim 3 to decide the appeal with respect to this
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013