Appeal No. 97-3665
Application 08/280,039
Claim terms are properly given their broadest reasonable
interpretation during patent examination. In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re
Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1404, 181 USPQ 641, 645 (CCPA 1974);
In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA
1969). The term "communications network" is not limited to
any particular type of communication, either wireless, by
cable, or even bidirectional. Extraneous features cannot be
read from the specification into the claims. E.I. du Pont de
Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433,
7 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Here, it is not
necessary to read in limitations from the specification to
make sense of the term "communications network."
Since there is no requirement for bidirectional
communication, transmission by public broadcasting for
reception by a plurality of radio receivers constitutes a form
of communications network. In column 4, lines 49-51, Stringer
describes an embodiment in which denatured versions of data
are transmitted by radio broadcasting. Thus, the network is
comprised of a single transmitter, the broadcasting station,
and a plurality of receivers tuned in to the transmission
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007