Appeal No. 96-0659
Application 08/081,040
’926 does not broadly structurally anticipate the image reconstructor of the disclosed
invention.
Appellant’s reliance on Figure 5 of the application points to a functional difference
between the disclosed invention and the Tam ’926 disclosure. As noted above with
respect to claim interpretation, however, appellant reads a functional limitation into claim 1
which is not commensurate in scope with the literal language of claim 1. The sixth
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 was not intended to permit an applicant to read disclosed
functional language into the claim which is not of the same scope as the claimed function.
Thus, the only structure necessary to meet the functions of claim 1 is an image
reconstructor as shown in appellant’s Figure 2. The processor 100 of Tam ’926 structurally
satisfies the disclosed image reconstructor and performs all the functions as recited in
claim 1. Therefore, appellant has failed to demonstrate that 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires a
claim interpretation that is inconsistent with the examiner’s interpretation of the claim.
Finally, appellant has submitted a declaration by Tam. The Tam declaration does
nothing more than support the position that the invention disclosed by Tam is not the same
as the invention disclosed in the application. We agree with the examiner that this is not
the issue to be resolved. The question is one of claim interpretation. Claim interpretation
is a matter of law, and Mr. Tam is not qualified to determine the scope of the claimed
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007