Appeal 2007-2046
Application 10/328,497
inoperative embodiment that a creative mind can imagine. In re Dinh-
Nguyen, 492 F.2d 856, 858-59, 181 USPQ 46, 48 (CCPA 1974). See also
In re Kamal, 398 F.2d 867, 872, 158 USPQ 320, 324 (CCPA 1968);
In re Sarett, 327 F.2d 1005, 1019, 140 USPQ 474, 486 (CCPA 1964).
Also, upon return of this Application to the Examiner, the Examiner
should reevaluate all the criticisms lodged against Appellants’ claim
language with the understanding that it is well settled that claim language is
not to be read in a vacuum but in light of the specification as it would be
reasonably interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed,
710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Moore,
439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
This Remand to the Examiner pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1) is
made for further consideration of a rejection. Accordingly, 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(a)(2) applies if a supplemental examiner’s answer is written in
response to this Remand by the Board.
REMANDED
clj
Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A.
1625 Radio Dr.
Suite 300
Woodbury, MN 55125
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3
Last modified: September 9, 2013