Appeal 2007-0265
Application 09/988,853
IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
"'[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every application is
subjected, is to try to make sure that what each claim defines is patentable.
[T]he name of the game is the claim. . . .'" In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,
1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich, The
Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of Claims -- American
Perspectives, 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. 497, 499, 501
(1990)). "[T]he PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'"
In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed.
Cir. 2000)). "Moreover, 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)).
V. ANALYSIS
Here, contrary to the premise of the Appellants' argument, claim 21
does not require logically grouping two elements held by a storage device.
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that the representative claim makes
"no mention of grouping [of] any kind." (Answer 17.) Because the premise
is faulty, we are unpersuaded by the argument based thereon. Therefore, we
affirm the rejection of claim 21 and of claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, 18, 20, 22,
23, 25-29, 31-35, 37-41, 43-46 and 48-50, which fall therewith.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013