Appeal No. 1999-1345 Page 9
Application No. 08/482,556
A. Claims 33 and 40
The appellants argue, “even if ... a first derivative
signal is internally produced in element 11, it is a
transitional or intermediate signal that exists solely for the
purpose of generating the second derivative signal 34 or 35 to
be used by other elements. Such an internally produced
voltage cannot be said to be ‘generated,’ as the term is used
in claims 33 and 40.” (Reply Br. at 5.)
“In the patentability context, claims are to be given
their broadest reasonable interpretations. 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)). Here, representative claim 40
specifies in pertinent part the following limitations:
"generating a first derivative signal ...." Those skilled in
the art would have understood that “generate” is “to bring
something into existence; produce.” American Heritage
Dictionary 552 (2d college ed. 1982) (copy attached). Giving
the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation in view of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007