Appeal No. 1996-3814 Page 4
Application No. 08/348,835
predetermined patterns on the magnetic scale to
detect predetermined patterns on the magnetic scale.
This does not make sense.
However, as indicated above, the claims are not read in a
vacuum. From our reading of appellants' specification and
the relevant prior art, it is clear that claim 2 is drawn to a
method including the steps of (1) providing a substrate that
is formed with grooves arranged in predetermined patterns and
which grooves are filled with a magnetized magnetic substance
(Figures 8-14 and pages 11-18 of appellants' specification)
and (2) detecting the predetermined patterns of the filled
grooves of the substrate to obtain position information
therefrom as part of the claimed method of employing the
substrate as a magnetic scale (appellants' specification, page
2, lines 23-27). Moreover, as evidenced by the Henrich patent
(Figures 1-5), of record, a skilled artisan would understand
the meaning of the method step of detecting a pattern on a
magnetic scale to obtain position information.
We do not agree with the view expressed in the dissenting
opinion regarding the majority's claim interpretation
requiring the importation of a magnetic head limitation into
the claim. As outlined above, the second claimed step
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007