Ex parte HAMBURGEN

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 11, 1998

07979552 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 11, 1998)

Application for patent filed November 18, 1992. 1
According to appellant, this application is a division of
Application 07/725,376, filed June 27, 1991, now abandoned; which
is a continuation of Application No. 07/542,180, June 22, 1990,
now abandoned.
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 32
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte WILLIAM R. HAMBURGEN
________________
Appeal No. 96-0979
Application No. 07/979,5521
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before KIMLIN, OWENS and PAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Appellant requests reconsideration of our decision of
April 30, 1997, wherein we affirmed the examiner's rejection of
the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal No. 96-0979
Application No. 07/979,552
-2-
Appellant takes issue with our statement in the decision
that "[a]ppellant's specification imparts no specific structure
to the frame." (Emphasis added.) Appellant responds that the
specification describes the frame as "being generally rectangular
and having a generally rectangular central opening" (page 1 of
Request). However, appellant's argument makes our point
precisely, viz., a generally rectangular shape and opening does
not amount to a specific structure. Also, it is not apparent to
us, as urged in the Request, that frame 11 of specification
Figure 1 has a relatively massive body. Furthermore, it is by
now well settled that claim language is to be given its broadest
reasonable interpretation during prosecution and that specific
limitations found in the specification are not to be read into
the claims.
Appellant's argument regarding the step of testing the chip
for proper electrical operation before installing a heatsink has
been adequately addressed in the original decision.
We have reconsidered our decision, as requested by
appellant, but we fail to find any error therein. Accordingly,
appellant's request is denied with respect to making any change
in our decision.
Appeal No. 96-0979
Application No. 07/979,552
-3-
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
DENIED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
TERRY J. OWENS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-0979
Application No. 07/979,552
-4-
Edward S. Wright
Flehr, Hohbach, Test, Albritton
& Herbert
Four Embarcadero Center
Suite 3400
San Francisco, CA 94111