Appeal No. 96-0548
Application 08/161,691
Appellant contends that there are two differences between
Iwanaga and the subject matter of Claim 54.
First, Appellant contends that Iwanaga does not increase
amplitude or frequency as recited. According to the examiner,
increasing the speed of the tones satisfies Claim 54's
recitation of increasing the “frequency.” Appellant
disagrees.
Claims undergoing examination are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification,
and limitations appearing in the specification are not to be
read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225
USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the present case, we find that Claim 54's “frequency”
may reasonably be read to include how frequently a warning
tone is repeated. Appellant points to nothing in the
specification with which the examiner’s interpretation is
inconsistent.
Moreover, although Claim 54 is not so limited, Iwanaga
suggests varying the electromagnetic frequency of the warning
tone as in Appellant’s preferred embodiment. Column 8, lines
39-56.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007