Appeal No. 95-1217
Application 08/039,674
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part and with emphasis
added, that "the image is processed in a plurality of parallel
analysis
chains, each of said analysis chains being a distinct means
for analyzing the image." The recitation of a "plurality" of
analysis chains itself requires multiple, separate analysis
chains. The requirement that the analysis chains be
"distinct" would be redundant with the "plurality" requirement
if "distinct" meant that the analysis chains need to be
separate from one another. Because each of the words in a
claim must be assumed to have some meaning, it would not be
reasonable to interpret "distinct" as synonymous with
"separate." Thus, the term "distinct" must require that the
analysis chains are not alike.
The specification supports this interpretation of claim
1. The specification states on page 8 that the preferred
embodiment includes the following analysis chains: a positive
texture
chain, a negative texture chain, a positive background
subtract chain, a negative background subtract chain, a
positive edge enhancement chain, and a negative edge
20
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007