Appeal 2007-1400
Reexamination Control 90/006,825
Patent 6,457,239 B1
reexamination, claims are "given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, and limitations appearing in the
specification are not to be read into the claims." In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d
1569, 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Moreover, because claims under
reexamination can be amended, they do not enjoy a presumption of
correctness. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858–59, 225 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir.
1985) (en banc).
To establish anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every
element in a claim, arranged as is recited in the claim, must be found in a
single prior art reference. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242
F.3d 1376, 1383, 58 USPQ2d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("Invalidity on
the ground of 'anticipation' requires lack of novelty of the invention as
claimed. The invention must have been known to the art in the detail of the
claim; that is, all of the elements and limitations of the claim must be shown
in a single prior reference, arranged as in the claim.") (citations omitted).
The obviousness or nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter is to
be assessed against the background of the scope and content of the prior art,
the differences between the prior art and the claimed subject matter, and the
level or ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 460 (1966). Numerous guidelines have been
propounded to assist the conduct of this analysis. Recently, the Court
explained, "If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
variation, §103 likely bars its patentability. . . . a court must ask whether the
improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according
to their established functions." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct.
-19-
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013