Appeal No. 1995-3903 Page 8
Application No. 08/062,737
Claims 37, 43, and 44
During patent examination, pending claims must be given
their broadest reasonable interpretation. Limitations from
the specification are not to be read into the claims. In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed.
Cir. 1993); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541,
550 (CCPA 1969). With this in mind, we address the
appellants’ arguments.
Regarding claims 37 and 43, the appellants argue, “Moon
does not control the initiation of a plurality of events or
tasks that are to be processed during each sector period such
that the initiation of each of those events will be maintained
in a constant spatial relationship to the sector period
regardless of the velocity of the disk.” (Reply Br. at 3.)
In response, the examiner asserts, “Moon is also directed to
direct liner spatial relationship [sic].” (Examiner’s Answer
at 8.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007