Appeal 2007-2110
Application 10/223,408
The issues before us are:
1. Whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-6 and 21-23 as unpatentable over Moreno, Maloney, and Ogilvie.
2. Whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 7-10 and 12-14 as unpatentable over Moreno and Ogilvie.
3. Whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 11 as unpatentable over Moreno, Ogilvie, and Hall.
4. Whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 15-18 and 24-26 as unpatentable over Moreno, Ogilvie, and Stephens.
5. Whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 19 as unpatentable over Moreno, Ogilvie, Stephens, and Kakuta.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427,
7 USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary
standard for proceedings before the Office).
1. A customary and ordinary meaning of the term “specification” is a
restricting or modifying element. Common synonyms are condition, provision,
qualification, reservation, stipulation, and term. Roget’s II The New Thesaurus 938
(3rd ed. 1995).
2. Appellants’ Specification does not define the term specification nor
does it utilize it contrary to its ordinary meaning.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013