Appeal No. 1996-1767 Page 10
Application No. 08/220,410
Nth adder 145 outputs data at a frequency of 1/T. This is the
same frequency at which the data streams are input.
Therefore, we find that the reference teaches inputting and
outputting signals at the same frequency.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 25, the appellants
argue, “Hirosaki does not disclose ... the lattice wave
digital filter ....” (Appeal Br. at 7.) The examiner
replies, “relative to claim 1 this is merely ‘intended use’
and relative to claim 25 it is only recited in the preamble
with the body of the claim defining the lattice wave digital
filter-which body is met by Hirosaki.” (Examiner’s Answer at
4.)
We agree with the examiner. Language in the preamble of
a claim generally does not limit the claim. DeGeorge v.
Bernier, 768 F.2d 1318, 1322 n.3, 226 USPQ 758, 761 n.3 (Fed.
Cir. 1985). The potential for misconstruction of preamble
language requires that a compelling reason exists before that
language may be given weight. In re De Castelet, 562 F.2d
1236, 1244 n.6, 195 USPQ 439, 446 n.6 (CCPA 1977).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007