In this nonprecedential opinion the Board reverses examiner’s § 103 rejection stating that the prior art references do not sustain a prima facie case of obviousness. Further the Board explains that at best the references satisfies an “obvious to try” standard, which is insufficient for conclusion of obviousness.
Results for validity
To define a word in a claim, first consider surrounding claim language and ordinary meaning (i.e., via a dictionary) prior to consulting the written description and prosecution history. Furthermore, for a 112, para. 6 claim, a single structure disclosed in the specification may support (be linked to) more than one function in the claim.