Ex Parte Bouic - Page 5

                Appeal 2007-1677                                                                                
                Application 10/121,491                                                                          

                of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations.  See Graham v.                  
                John Deere of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).                         
                The analysis supporting obviousness should be made explicit and should                          
                “identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the                   
                art to combine the elements” in the manner claimed.  KSR Int’l Co. v.                           
                Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1731, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1389 (2007).                             
                Implicit in any review of the Examiner’s obviousness analysis is that the                       
                claim must first have been correctly construed to define the scope and                          
                meaning of each contested limitation.  See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d                        
                1454, 1460 n.3, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1035 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  During                              
                prosecution before the Examiner, claims are given their broadest reasonable                     
                interpretation as they would ordinarily be used and understood by one of                        
                ordinary skill in the art, taking into account any enlightenment or definition                  
                found in the specification.  See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054,                             
                44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  Particular embodiments appearing                        
                in the Specification will not be read into the claims when the claim language                   
                is broader than such embodiments, and the Examiner should only limit the                        
                claim based on an express disclaimer of a broader definition.  See Electro                      
                Med. Sys. S.A. v. Cooper Life Sciences, 34 F.3d 1048, 1054, 32 USPQ2d                           
                1017, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1994); and In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325,                              
                72 USPQ2d 1209, 1210-11 (Fed. Cir. 2004).                                                       
                       Applying the preceding legal principles to the construction of claim 1                   
                on appeal, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the                      
                language of claim 1 on appeal would include an elongate foam body with                          
                longitudinally extending edges on opposite sides of a longitudinally                            


                                                       5                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013