Appeal 2007-1630
Application 10/422,661
losing a signal), the Examiner disagrees, noting that Appellant has not
claimed any time period determination (Ans. 10-11).
We note that Appellant specifically argues in the Brief:
It should be noted, as well, that nowhere in these passages of
Pombo’s disclosure are any processes described which would
amount to “determination of the length of time of finding a
signal” and [the] “length of time of losing a signal”, using
Appellant’s analogous argued description or interpretation
[emphasis added].
(App. Br. 7, ¶2)
We note that patentability is based upon the claims. “It is the claims
that measure the invention.” SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of America,
775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Limitations appearing in
the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim.
E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(claims must be interpreted “in view of the specification” without importing
limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily).
Here, we agree with the Examiner, and find the claims do not require
determination of a length of time of finding or losing a signal, as argued by
Appellant. Instead, the representative claim broadly recites: “determining
that a period of signal intermittence has started by detecting threshold
conditions for a transient network signal being intermittently found and
intermittently lost [emphasis added];” (Claim 1). Thus, we find this portion
of the claim broadly but reasonably reads on Pombo’s detection of each
control channel signal from a particular base station, since each control
channel signal is intermittent, and Pombo records the time it was initially
detected in the control activity table (col. 5, ll. 34-38; col. 6, ll. 31-35).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013