Appeal No. 1997-1208
Application 08/077,219
of the claim language depends on whether one of ordinary skill
in the art
would understand what is claimed in light of the
specification.
Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731
F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
After reviewing the arguments of record, we are in
agreement with Appellants (Brief, page 7) that no ambiguity or
lack of clarity exists in the claim language. Our review of
the language of the appealed claims reveals no uncertain or
unstated cooperative relationships among the claimed elements
as asserted by the Examiner. We further agree with Appellants
that, contrary to the Examiner’s contention, no ambiguity
exists in the usage of the term “emulation”, nor in the
indication that the claimed communication link is being
requested by the first process.
It is our view that the skilled artisan, having
considered the specification in its entirety, would have no
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007