In re Hyatt

Three general and undisputed propositions guide our review of the Board's decision. First, anticipation is a question of fact. See Bischoff v. Wethered, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 812, 814-15, 19 L. Ed. 829 (1869); In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Second, we uphold decisions of the Board on factual matters if there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's findings. See In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315, 53 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1769, 1775 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Third, during examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). That last proposition "serves the public interest by reducing the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will be given broader scope than is justified," In re ((In re Yamamoto|In re Yamamoto|Yamamoto)), 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984), and it is not unfair to applicants, because "before a patent is granted the claims are readily amended as part of the examination process," Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Quigg, 822 F.2d 1581, 1583, 3 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1436, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Operating in conjunction as they do in this case, these three propositions make the applicant's task on appeal to this court a daunting one.