Appeal 2007-1595
Application 09/751,858
1 07. Jensen does not show any adjustment that determines whether workload
2 was a factor in signaling of a special cause in variation portrayed in a
3 date gap analysis.
4 Pfeiffer
5 08. Pfeiffer does show that Teksid Aluminum Foundry (TAF) displayed the
6 number of days since the last lost time incident throughout the plant
7 (Pfeiffer, paragraph 12), but does not show any analysis of events
8 according to the time between the event and the previous event relative
9 to the average time between events.
10 09. Pfeiffer does not show any adjustment that determines whether workload
11 was a factor in signaling of a special cause in variation portrayed in a
12 date gap analysis.
13 10. The Examiner takes official notice of the notoriety of adjusting
14 workloads in response to dangerous working conditions. (Answer 5).
15
16 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
17 Claim Construction
18 The general rule is that terms in the claim are to be given their ordinary and
19 accustomed meaning. Johnson Worldwide Assocs. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985,
20 989, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1610 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In the USPTO, claims are
21 construed giving their broadest reasonable interpretation.
22 [T]he Board is required to use a different standard for construing
23 claims than that used by district courts. We have held that it is
24 erroneous for the Board to “appl[y] the mode of claim interpretation
25 that is used by courts in litigation, when interpreting the claims of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013