Appeal No. 95-4187
Application 07/835,374
to describe his or her inven- tion, this must be done with
reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir.
1994). Our reviewing court states in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) that "claims
must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably
allow."
We note that Appellants' specification states that
the harmonizing knowledge 52 shown in Figure 1 includes
"knowledge
for selecting necessary element knowledge therefrom, knowledge
for solving conflicts, if any, existing between element
knowledge 51, and knowledge for altering element knowledge 51
to be suit- able for the current state of the system." Thus,
we find that harmonizing knowledge as used by the Appellants'
specification is knowledge for selecting necessary element
knowledge.
We appreciate Appellants' argument that Tsuruta does
not teach changing the element knowledge in accordance with
the contents of the harmonizing knowledge. However, we find
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007