Ex Parte Kinzhalin et al - Page 6

                Appeal 2007-1416                                                                             
                Application 09/881,791                                                                       
                      6, l. 45).  Thus each line in the procedures section is a testable, and                
                      tested statement.  (Col. 6, top paragraph).                                            
                                          PRINCIPLES OF LAW                                                  
                      On appeal, Appellants bear the burden of showing that the Examiner                     
                has not established a legally sufficient basis for the rejection of the claims.              
                      “In reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must                      
                necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.”  In re Oetiker, 977                     
                F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).                                      
                      “To reject claims in an application under section 103, an examiner                     
                must show an unrebutted prima facie case of obviousness. . . .  On appeal to                 
                the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by showing insufficient                     
                evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case                     
                with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.” [citations removed].                  
                In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1998)                    
                      Both anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and obviousness under § 103                    
                are two-step inquiries, in which the first step is a proper construction of the              
                claims and the second step requires a comparison of the properly construed                   
                claim to the prior art.  Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 353 F.3d 928, 933, 69                 
                USPQ2d 1283, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2003).                                                          
                      Our reviewing court states in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13                       
                USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) that “claims must be interpreted as                       
                broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”  Our reviewing court further states                
                that "the words of a claim 'are generally given their ordinary and customary                 
                meaning.'"  Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 75 USPQ2d 1321,                      
                1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted).  The "ordinary and                      
                customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have                    

                                                     6                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013