Appeal No. 95-5039
Application 07/979,018
closure. More specifically, the specification (page 3, lines 18
through 21) sets forth that a second signal is encrypted, which
second signal is derived at least in part from a first signal
representative of the image. As subsequently stated in the
specification (page 4, lines 16 through 24), the second signal
(encrypted) includes a compressed form of the first signal. As
indicated, the claim language at issue, understood in light of
the specification, makes it clear to us that the encrypted signal
includes a compressed form (reduction in bytes) of the first
signal (representative of the image). To read the compressed
representation of claim 38 as simply a form of encryption would
be inconsistent with, rather than consistent with, appellant’s
disclosure which describes these terms separately and distinctly,
one from the other (specification, pages 6 and 7; compressor
module 16 and encrypter module 20 of Figure 1). See In re Bond,
910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
REMAND TO EXAMINER
U.S. Patent No. 5,471,533 to Wang et al (column 3,
line 51 to column 4, line 35) has come to our attention. A copy
of this patent is appended to our opinion.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007