Appeal No. 2000-2074
Application 09/178,070
serve as code unlike Appellant’s system, which “identifies by
emission of an irregularity and reception of that irregularity
when its counterparts are at the one pulse number[.]” See page
4, lines 15-17 of Supplemental Appeal Brief.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is the
claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In addition, claims are to be interpreted
as the terms reasonably allow. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321,
13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Also, “[i]t is axiomatic
that, in proceedings before the PTO, . . . 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).
Claim 1 recites “Counterpart of known identity is designed
to receive emissions at one particular pulse number following its
emitted irregularity and no other; and if said other
Counterpart’s emitted irregularity occurs at the one pulse
number, identity is established by the reception of emissions to
said Counterpart of known identity after which the Counterparts
have means to indicate emissions have been sent and received,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007