Appeal 2007-0128
Reexamination Control 90/006,208
Patent 5,573,648
amount of expensive catalyst, while not adversely decreasing the ionic
conductivity of the structure.
Claim 80
Atwood claim 80 depends from independent claim 79 and further requires
that the gas sensor have a cap in communication with the sensing electrode.
Atwood’s specification describes the term “can” in conjunction with the use of a
cap and can design gas sensor. (‘648, e.g., col. 6, ll. 1-3).
The Examiner relies upon Dempsey as teaching a cap. In particular, the
Examiner states that bottom plate 15 of Dempsey Figure 1 is a cap as the term is
broadly construed. Atwood disagrees. Atwood argues that:
Such bottom plate is not the cap recited in claim 80. In particular, the
cap recited in claim 80, as taught in the specification of the ‘648
Patent
and as shown in the drawings, is for enclosing the sensing and counter
electrodes and is in communication with the sensing electrode.
Dempsey shows no such cap. Thus, Dempsey either alone or on [sic,
in] combination with any citation fails to render claim 80 obvious.
(Appeal Br. at 53-54).
Claims are given their broadest reasonable construction during prosecution
before the USPTO because claims may be amended to the proper scope and
because it serves the public interest by reducing the possibility that the claims will
be construed more broadly after issuance than they were during examination. In re
Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The plain
51
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013