Appeal 2007-0551
Application 09/927,281
Corp., 334 F.3d 314, 67 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2003), cited by
Appellants, does not overturn or erode this well-settled principle. Omega
Eng’g involves patent infringement and the interpretation of claim language
under the presumption of validity, but in no way stands for the proposition
that an applicant’s argument may place a numerical limitation on a claimed
term having no quantitative limits. Indeed, Appellants’ own specification is
not so limiting. To wit, the Specification discloses that “[a]lthough a blank
thickness 27 and radius 24 have been described, it should be understood that
a vast array of radii can be used in conjunction with differing blank
thickness and blank materials may be utilized” (Specification 7:13-17).
Hence, inasmuch as it is undisputed that the leading edge of the moving
blades of Kohama and Madsen possess a radius, both references describe a
radius within the broad scope of the appealed claims. As for the claim 1
recitation “adapted to reduce defects in the blank,” the claim language is
relative in nature with no expressed standard for comparison and, therefore,
does not serve to distinguish over the inherent radii of the moving blades of
Kohama and Madsen.
Concerning the § 103 rejections of Kohama in view of Hambli and
Madsen in view of Hambli, it logically follows that we concur with the
Examiner that Kohama and Madsen support a conclusion of obviousness of
the claimed subject matter, with or without the additional motivation
provided by Hambli. Manifestly, anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Hambli establishes the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013