At page 3 of the request, appellants state that,
If any of claims 7-11, 14-17 and 20 were to be
asserted against the prior art acknowledged in Fig. 2 of
the present application, it is very clear that there
would be no infringement. By the same token, such an
arrangement does not anticipate the claims.
This argument is unpersuasive. The mode of claim interpretation
used by courts in litigation when interpreting claims of issued patents
in connection with infringement or validity determinations is not the
mode of claim interpretation applicable during prosecution of a pending
application. During patent examination claims must be interpreted as
broadly as they reasonably allow. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44
USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Also at page 3 of the request, it is argued,
In addition, it is noted that lines 23-25 of page 8 of the
specification point out that ~substantially at the start of the
wanted information area~ is synonymous with ~substantially at the
start of the control field.~ This makes it very clear that bit
position no. 12 in a 16-bit control field is not considered to be
substantially at the start of the information area. This is not a
case of reading extra limitations into the claims, but simply a
proper reliance on the specification to determine the meaning of a
claim term.
This position is unpersuasive because claim 17 itself defines the
information area as in the form of at least one data field and at least
one control field. Thus, there is no requirement that the admitted
prior art disclose bit position no. 12 substantially at the start of the
control field itself.
The gist of appellant~s request with respect to claims 12, 18 and
21 in the paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5 is not that the Board
misapprehended or overlooked any points raised by appellants on appeal
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007