Appeal No. 96-4012
Application No. 08/197,908
alleged deficiency of Galand in disclosing the utilization of
a plurality of coders on a source signal. In addition,
Appellant contends that Galand is not concerned with the
problem of speech degradation due to tandem coding.
After careful review of Appellant’s arguments, it is our
view that such arguments are not commensurate with the scope
of independent claim 9. It is axiomatic that, in proceedings
before the PTO, claims in an application are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and that claim language should be read in light
of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548,
218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Moreover, limitations are
not to be read into the claims from the specification. In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The present claim 9 does not
recite the use of a plurality of coders applied to a signal
source as argued by Appellant. Rather, claim 9 recites only
“. . . coding said audio information signal into a plurality
of digitally compressed representations;. . . .” In our view,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007