Appeal No. 96-0899
Application 07/863,216
disclosed as being commonly connected to a mini computer sitting
in a hospital ward" [brief, page 9-emphasis ours]. However, as
broadly recited in claim 5, we agree with the examiner that Auer
does, indeed, disclose a "cluster" and we will not read
limitations of appellants' specification into the claim where
there is no express statement of the limitations included in the
claim. In re Priest, 582 F.2d 33, 37, 199 USPQ 11, 15 (CCPA
1978); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA
1969); In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 639, 188 USPQ 129, 130-31
(CCPA 1975).
Moreover, appellants apparently agree that Auer
"briefly discloses" that the keyboard/display devices are
commonly connected to the mini computer of the hospital ward.
Therefore, Auer teaches a "cluster" whether the connections are
"briefly" disclosed or disclosed in greater detail. Since the
bedside terminals in Auer have the same information as a
conventional clipboard, i.e., patient data, and these terminals
are interconnected, through mini computers, to the mainframe
computers 71 and 72, where information is shared, each bedside
terminal in Auer is reasonably considered to be a "patient
tracking system," as claimed.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007