Appeal No. 96-3338
Application No. 08/442,253
In general, we agree with the statement by the examiner, but as pointed out by our
reviewing court, we must first determine the scope of the claim. "[T]he name of the game
is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir.
1998). The claim recites a "means for calculating, from the header information field, a
check correction field (CCF) which is incorporated in the header (HDR) and preserves
said check field (CRC) as valid for the entire message (MESS)." Appellants argue the
above language of the claim. We have reviewed the Furuya patent and find no disclosure
concerning a check field which "preserves said check field (CRC) as valid for the entire
message (MESS)." Furthermore, the Examiner has not provided a convincing line of
reasoning why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention to provide a correction field which
"preserves said check field (CRC) as valid for the entire message (MESS)" as set forth in
the language of claim 1.
With respect to the appellants' argument concerning an adjustment code rather than
a separate error correction code, when the argument is viewed in light of the specification,
it is clear that appellants intended to assert that the CCF added to the header preserves
the validity of the CRC existing in the packet for the data portion of the message. (See
brief at page 9, paragraph 3 and answer at page 5.) Furthermore, the CCF added
provides for a check not only of the header, but also of the entire message (header plus
data plus existing CRC) thereby making the existing error correction valid for additional
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007