Interference No. 103,197
matter of the count for a number of reasons. The first is
that the test apparatus was not "a monitoring device," as
required by the count, because the emitter and the receiver
were "constructed as separate devices; using a separate
emitter and receiver would be impossible in practice and thus
the 'monitoring device' of the count should be considered a
single device." We do not agree that the term "a monitoring75
device" as used in the count should be construed so narrowly.
It is well settled that unambiguous counts are given the
broadest reasonable interpretation without reference to either
party's disclosure, DeGeorge v. Bernier, 768 F.2d 1318, 1321,
226 USPQ 758, 760-61 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Buschmann has not
asserted, let alone demonstrated, that the count is ambiguous.
See also Newkirk v. Lulejian, 825 F.2d 1581, 1583, 3 USPQ2d
1793, 1795 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (limitations not clearly included
in a count should not be read into it). When the count is
given its broadest reasonable construction, it does not
require that the radiation emitter and the radiation detector
be supported in a fixed relationship with respect to each
other by a single carrier, i.e., probe body.
B.Br. 63-64, paragraph 5.75
- 47 -
Page: Previous 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007