Appeal No. 2003-2065
Application 09/881,441
citing Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218
UPSQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Appellants argue that Lewis does not teach having stored
test voice information at each node in the network. See pages 5
and 6 of the brief.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the clam. “[T]he name of the game is the
claim.” In re Hininker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claims will be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and
limitations appearing in the specification are not to be read
into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5
(Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 828 (1985).
We note that Appellants’ claim 11 recites “[a] signal for a
voice call . . . comprising a plurality of packets at least some
of which comprises test voice information.” We further note that
the claim recites that the signals comprises “test voice
information for comparison at a node with stored test voice
information which is the same as the test voice information.”
The question is whether this language is further limiting to the
claim. We note that Appellants have claimed a signal and not a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007