Appeal No. 2007-0204
Application 10/938,966
invention, does not mean "turned off" or "disabled completely" or
"inactivated." No other implementations are disclosed. "One shows that one
is 'in possession' of the invention by describing the invention, with all its
claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious." Lockwood v. American
Airlines Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The Examiner clearly would have also rejected claims 44 and 45 if she was
aware of Appellant's interpretation of "disabled" to mean "reduced, but not
completely disabled," as now being argued. In another case, "disabled" may
not mean completely turned off depending on the disclosure. Appellant has
not persuaded us of error in our interpretation of "disabled" or that "disabled"
supports the definition of "reduced" as "diminished, but not eliminated."
2.
Appellant argues that we improperly construed the term "increase" and
that our statement that "'increase' means to make greater, which implies that
the gradients must not be at zero" (Decision 7) is erroneous and places a
narrowing interpretation on this term that is unnecessary to the decision (Req.
Reh'g 3-4). It is requested this interpretation be corrected.
Upon reconsideration, we agree with Appellant's argument. "Increase"
is a relative term which includes increasing from zero. We modify our
original opinion to the extent of striking the last sentence on page 7.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013