Appeal 2007-1422 Reexamination Control 90/007,260 Patent 6,093,139 DISCUSSION Scope of the Claims A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 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 a reexamination proceeding, claims should be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “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.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “An essential purpose during patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous.” Id. “Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” Id. Claim 1 reads (Appendix A to the Brief; emphasis added): 1. Product cutting device for flat material comprising: a pinless product folding cylinder rotating about an axis of rotation and having a surface supporting an incoming material; 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013