Appeal 2007-0908
Application 10/152,077
44. Dry gas is then passed over the wafer, which is brought to a second
rotation speed of about 800-1800 rpm. (Bergman at 4:36-54.)
Mohindra and Hamaya
Because Christenson does not present distinct arguments for the
patentability of the claims rejected over Mohindra or Hamaya, we do not
find it necessary to describe these references.
C. Discussion
Obviousness is a legal conclusion based on findings of fact. Graham
v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 466 (1966). It follows
that if the findings of fact are erroneous or insufficient, the legal conclusion
cannot stand. On appeal, the burden is on the Appellant to show reversible
error in a rejection prima facie established by the Examiner.
During prosecution of an application for patent, the claims are given
the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification as it would
be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The
focus remains on the words of the claim, Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314, 75
USPQ2d at 1327. The distinction between using the specification to
interpret the meaning of a claim and importing limitations from the
specification into the claims must be maintained. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1324,
75 USPQ2d at 1334. Moreover, all of the words of the claim must be
considered when construing the claim. Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA,
Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1641, 1648 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("A
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013