Appeal 2007-2133
Application 10/790,502
fifth ground of rejection as a group (id. 15). Thus, we decide this appeal
based on independent claims 25, 29, 32, and 36, and on dependent claims
27, 33, and 37, as representative of the grounds of rejection and Appellants’
groupings of claims, to the extent argued in the Brief. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)
(1)(vii) (2005).
The issues in this appeal are whether the Examiner has carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case in each of the grounds of rejection
advanced on appeal.
The issues in this appeal entail the interpretation of the claims. We
interpret independent claims 25, 29, 32, and 36, and dependent claims 27,
33, and 37, by giving the terms thereof the broadest reasonable interpretation
in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the
Specification unless another meaning is intended by Appellants as
established therein, and without reading into the claim any disclosed
limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re
Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1666-667 (Fed. Cir. 2000);
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-055, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir.
1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989).
The plain language of independent process claim 25 specifies a
process of coating any fuel cell plate comprising at least the steps of, among
other things, (1) applying in any manner any epoxy nitrile resin on at least a
first surface of the plate “at generally ambient temperatures,” wherein “the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013