Source: http://www.ptab.us/2010/09/reversed-baumeister.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 12:48:20+00:00

Document:
The claim construction analysis begins with the words of the claim. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Absent an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim term, the words take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art. Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
As such, in our view, the Examiner relied on hindsight in reaching his obviousness determination. Our reviewing court has said, “[t]o imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge of the invention in suit, when no prior art reference or references of record convey or suggest that knowledge, is to fall victim to the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the inventor taught is used against its teacher.” W. L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). It is essential that "the decisionmaker forget what he or she has been taught at trial about the claimed invention and cast the mind back to the time the invention was made . . . to occupy the mind of one skilled in the art who is presented only with the references, and who is normally guided by the then-accepted wisdom in the art." Id.
Thus, for the term "immediately upstream" to mean that the sensor is merely between the mill and the trimming head, one would have to essentially ignore the term because a sensor upstream of the hot rolled mill will not be able to measure the edges and width of the not-yet-formed strip. See Bicon Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("claims are interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim"); Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions that render phrases in claims superfluous).
We are guided by the principle that the claimed subject matter must be disclosed in the reference with sufficient specificity in order to constitute an anticipation. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp, 441 F.3d 991, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In the Atofina case, neither a disclosure of a broad range of 100-500° C., nor a disclosure of a narrower preferred range of 150-350° C., was found to anticipate a claimed range of 330-450° C., despite the former range fully encompassing the claimed range and the latter range having a degree of overlap with the claimed range. Id. The Federal Circuit noted, in this respect, that the disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is of each of the intermediate points. Id.
The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580 (CCPA 1967).
In re Rundell, 18 CCPA 1290, 48 F.2d 958, 9 USPQ 220[, 221] [“Appellant argues that his rejected claims rest upon an automatic mechanism. The mere statement that a device is to be operated automatically instead of by hand, without a claim specifying any particular automatic mechanism, is not the statement of an invention. Marchand v. Emken, 132 U. S. 195; In re Gill, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 700, 36 F. (2d) 128.”]” In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192, 194 (CCPA 1958).
The intent or recognition that a method achieves a stated result does not change how the method is carried out. See also Ex parte Batteux, Appeal No. 2007-0622, 2007 WL 5211675 (BPAI, Mar. 27, 2007) (Informative Opinion).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.