Appeal 2007-1463 Page 18
Application 10/083,492
Graham further noted that evidence of secondary considerations “might be utilized
to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter
sought to be patented.” 383 U.S. at 18, 148 USPQ at 467.
D. Analysis
The principal issue is whether the claimed assembly is limited so as to
include no more than one plate. We agree with the Examiner that it does not. The
claim clearly states that the assembly comprises a single plate. Given the open-
ended language of the claim, the claim encompasses an assembly with more than
one single plate. We are not persuaded by any of the arguments Appellants make in
advocating an interpretation of the phrase “single plate” that would confine the
claimed assembly to one that included no more than one single plate. Claims are
given the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “The
Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) determines the scope of 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.’ In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
367 F.3d 1359, 1364 [70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004).” Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Appellants
do not point to anywhere in the Specification that would support the view that the
broadest reasonable construction of the claim in light of the Specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art is that the claimed assembly
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013