Appeal No. 1997-2760
Application No. 08/302,133
Our interpretation of the disclosure of Takahashi
coincides with that of Appellants, i.e. there is communication
between the control apparatus 1 and the base station 2 only
when the signal window 8 of the control apparatus is mounted
on the base in mating relationship with signal window 107. As
such, there is no communication between the control apparatus
1 and the base 2 in Takahashi that is independent of the
attachment or detachment of the apparatus from the base as
required by the language of the claims on appeal.
We take note of the Examiner’s differing interpretation
of the language of the appealed claims; it is our view,
however, that such interpretation is not supported by the
present factual situation. The Examiner, in interpreting the
critical language from claim 10 reproduced in the excerpt
cited supra, has treated the language “operable independently
of” as a modifier of the language “the telephone set” rather
than “means for communication”. While the Examiner is correct
that claims are to be given their broadest possible
interpretation, any such interpretation must be consistent
with the specification. It is apparent from our reading of
Appellant’s specification that the claim language “operable
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007