Appeal No. 96-1990
Application 07/536,910
folds on the paper, skewed positioning of the printing paper, or
even the optics of the scanning process. In such light, there is
no reason to exclude poor handwriting as a source of defective
pixel representation. Claim terms are properly construed
according to their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d
1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Pearson,
494 F.2d 1399, 1404, 181 USPQ 641, 645 (CCPA 1974); In re Prater,
415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
The appellant’s main argument is correct, however, that
"Leung generates defective characters for only a single class of
defects, namely those resulting from variations in handwriting"
(Br. at 8). While it is true that Leung discusses two types of
handwriting variations, i.e., one resulting from different slopes
for the same stroke in a Chinese character and the other
resulting from different sizes for the same subparts of a Chinese
character, Leung does not disclose or reasonably suggest
generating different handwriting samples based on only one of the
two types of variations. In Leung, the user does not select any
particular class of defective pixel representations and the
system does not receive any defect class parameter. Rather, the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007