Appeal 2007-1167
Application 10/784,056
March 3, 2006, (3) the Examiner’s Answer, mailed April 20, 2006, and (4)
the Reply Brief, filed May 15, 2006. We have also studied Applicant’s
Specification and Drawings and the disclosures of Watkins, U.S. Patent
6,324,765, Blevins, U.S. Patent 6,327,782, Wright, U.S. Patent 5,107,665,
and Bridgers, U.S. Design Patent 373,712.
Discussion
Claim Construction
A rejection of claimed subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
should not be based upon speculation and assumptions as to the scope of the
claims. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962).
Accordingly, we determine first the scope and content of the claimed subject
matter in order to completely explore the relationship of the invention
Applicant claims to the prior art.
“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as
broadly as their terms reasonably allow.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “The reason is simply that during
patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be
recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification
imposed.” Id. “An essential purpose during patent examination is to fashion
claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous.” Id at 322, 13
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013