Appeal No. 1997-1111 Page 11
Application No. 08/105,899
manipulated variable U and the controlled variable Y, the
process characteristics of maximum slope R, dead time L, and
steady gain K are measured. Appellant asserts (brief, page 9)
that in appellant’s invention, the determining step is
determined, for example, based on values relating to an
amplitude and period of an input waveform. According to
appellant (id.) “the determining steps of the processes
differ, and Ueda does not meet the claim limitations of the
present invention.”
As stated by the court in In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d
1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) “[t]he name
of the game is the claim.” Claims will be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and limitations appearing in the specification
are not to be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852,
858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Neither claim 1 nor
claim 14 recite determining dynamic process characteristics
based on the amplitude and period of an input waveform.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007