Appeal No. 96-4005
Application 08/183,531
regions farthest from the aircraft once a large sample region related to potential course deviations is
identified. In Appellant's view, Feuerstein's disclosure actually teaches away from the present invention
since, in contrast to the presently claimed decreasing sample region size, the sample regions in
Feuerstein increase in size with increasing distance from the aircraft.
After careful review of Appellant's arguments, it is our opinion that such arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of independent claim 1. It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the
PTO, claims in an application are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification, and that claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385,
388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.
In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) citing In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The present claim 1 does not recite
the decreasing sample region size feature as argued by Appellant. Rather, claim 1 recites only
"...sample regions varying in dimension according to use...". In our view, Feuerstein provides an explicit
teaching of this recited feature. As can be seen from the illustration in Figure 1 of Feuerstein, the rough
analyzer fan shaped sample region F varies in dimension from the fine analyzer sample region f . We1 1
further note that there are no reasons on the record before us, and Appellant has provided none, to
question the Examiner’s assertion (Answer, page 3) that short and long range terrain following
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007