Appeal 2007-4013
Application 09/768,512
Appellants request review of the following grounds of rejection
advanced on appeal (Br. 8):
claims 1, 2, 6 through 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement (Answer 3);
claims 1, 2, 6 through 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which applicant regards as the invention (id. 4); and
claims 1, 2, 6 through 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Usui ‘774 or Usui ‘611 alone or in view of Shimada and
Nonnenmann (id. 5).
Appellants argue the claims in each ground of rejection as a group.
Br. 9, 11, and 15. Thus, we decide this appeal based on claim 1. 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 claim 1 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 Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed.
Cir. 1989).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013