Appeal No. 2004-0023
Application No. 09/334,574
error therein. We, therefore, decline to make any changes in our
prior decision for the reasons which follow.
Appellant initially contends that our prior decision
misinterprets the language of independent claim 1 as well as
misconstrues the teachings of the Markman reference. We find no
error, however, in our interpretation of the disclosure of
Markman, nor in our conclusions drawn therefrom, as expressed in
our prior decision.
Appellant reiterates the contention that, unlike the claimed
invention which operates on manually grouped articles to verify
that the grouping is correct, Markman is operating on ungrouped
articles which are reassembled into groups after processing. In
making this argument, Appellant relies on the claim language
which recites that verification is performed on articles to
verify that articles “which were physically grouped by a manual
or automated grouping process into a physically grouped order,
belong to the physically grouped order . . . .” In Appellant’s
view, this claim language must be interpreted as requiring
verification after articles have been manually grouped after
processing, i.e. after assembly.
We remain, however, of the opinion that there is nothing in
the language of claim 1 which requires the interpretation urged
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007