Appeal No. 95-4884
Application 08/133,416
§ 102. There appears to be no dispute between the appellants and
the examiner regarding the teachings of Edelmann. The sole
dispute appears to resolve around interpreting the language
common among independent claims 1 and 3 on appeal.
We quote the following from page 4 of the brief:
In the Final Office Action the Examiner
has agreed with Applicants interpretation of
Edelmann et al. but has disagreed with the
scope of the following words that are part of
both claims 1 and 3:
generating a predetermined number of
keys,assigning one of said keys to a
particular postage meter...
The Examiner has found that such words
include generating a single key and assigning
the single key to a meter. Applicant has
asserted that the such words clearly do not
support the Examiner’s interpretation.
Although the words "generating a
predetermined number of keys" may be
interpreted as including the generation of a
single key, when combined with the words
"assigning one of said keys to a particular
postage meter" such interpretation is clearly
incorrect. The predetermined number of keys
generated in claims 1 and 3 must be more than
one key.
....Clearly, when the step of "generating
a predetermined number of keys" is combined
with the step of "assigning one of said keys"
only one interpretation is possible, i.e.,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007