Ex Parte Lifson et al - Page 5



            Appeal 2007-1444                                                                               
            Application 10/732,497                                                                         

                      measured equilibrium pressure with a minimum acceptable pressure for                 
                      the measured ambient temperature.   For example, the “VERY LOW                       
                      REFRIGERANT CHARGE NOT DETECTED” condition of Scoccia                                
                      provides an indication that actual pressure is at or above minimum                   
                      allowable pressure (Scoccia, col.  2, ll. 13-34), but does not show by how           
                      much or determine a corresponding amount of refrigerant charge loss on               
                      an absolute or percentage basis.                                                     

                                         PRINCIPLES OF LAW                                                 
                  “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the               
            claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art                
            reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2               
            USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).  Analysis               
            of whether a claim is patentable over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins               
            with a determination of the scope of the claim.  We determine the scope of the                 
            claims in patent applications “not solely on the basis of the claim language, but              
            upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the                     
            specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’”                
            Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir.                    
            2005)  (en banc) (quoting In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364,             
            70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).  The properly interpreted claim must                   
            then be compared with the prior art.                                                           


                                                    5                                                      



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013