Ex Parte Huff - Page 5



              Appeal No. 2004-0959                                                                                          
              Application 09/915,743                                                                                        


              893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,                         
              1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551, 190 USPQ 461,                        
              463 (CCPA 1976); In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976).                             
              Limitations, however, are not to be read from the specification into the claims.  See In re                   
              Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1405, 162 USPQ 541, 551 (CCPA 1969).                                                   
                     The appellant’s specification discloses (page 4, lines 10-16):                                         
                     A first device communicates a set of capabilities to a second device (i.e. a link                      
                     partner).  If the second device supports this set of capabilities, a connection is                     
                     attempted according to this set of capabilities and, if successful, the two link                       
                     partners communicate according to this set of capabilities.                                            
                             However, if the link cannot be established according to this set of                            
                     capabilities, the first device downgrades its set of capabilities and communicates                     
                     this downgraded set of capabilities to the second device.                                              
                     The specification does not specify what is meant by “a connection is attempted”.                       
              Because the set of capabilities is supported by both devices, it reasonably appears that “a                   
              connection is attempted” means that the devices attempt to communicate at that set of                         
              capabilities.  If that attempt fails, then the devices downgrade the set of capabilities.  Hence,             
              the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification of “failing to establish a link”          
              and comparable terms in the appellant’s claims includes failing to obtain adequate                            
              communication at a set of capabilities.  That interpretation is consistent not only with the                  
              appellant’s specification, but also with the prior art (Feuerstraeter, col. 6, line 30 - col. 7, line 5;      
              col. 8, lines 24-55; col. 9, lines 40-63).                                                                    
                     The appellant’s specification does not specify why the attempt to communicate fails at                 
              the higher set of capabilities.  Because the higher set of capabilities is supported by both                  


                                                                5                                                           



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007