Appeal 2007-1417
Application 09/877,536
usually must evaluate both the scope and content of the prior art and the
level of ordinary skill solely on the cold words of the literature").
During examination of patent application, a claim is given its broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re Prater, 415
F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). "[T]he 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) (internal citations omitted). The "ordinary and
customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have
to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention,
i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application." Id. at 1313, 75
USPQ2d at 1326.
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-31 as
being obvious over the P3P Note and Curbow. Reviewing the documents of
record and the findings of facts cited above, we do not agree. In particular,
we find that the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner failed to make
a prima facie showing of obviousness with respect to claims 1-31.
Appellants failed to meet the burden of overcoming that prima facie
showing.
Regarding claim 1, Appellants first argue there is no motivation to
combine the P3P Note and Curbow. (Br. 15-17; Reply Br. 2-4.) We do not
agree.
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013