Results for validity
In this nonprecedential opinion the Board reverses examiner’s § 103 rejection stating that the prior art references do not sustain a prima facie case of obviousness.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.
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.