Ex parte WEBB - Page 10

          Appeal No. 1997-1232                                                        
          Application No. 08/182,035                                                  

          by the majority, I would have affirmed the rejection of claim               
          1 under 35 U.S.C.  102 as being anticipated by Carmon.                     

               The majority states on page 6 of the opinion that Carmon               
          "does not detect a maximum or minimum value as required by the              
          language of independent claim 1."  The majority reasons that                
          Carmon's method "utilizes an algorithm which enables a                      
          determination as to whether maximum or minimum peaks fall                   
          between two sample points on a curve but has no disclosure                  
          related to the actual detection of the values of those peaks".              
          Emphasis added.   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).  Claims will be                
          given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with              
          the specification, and limitation 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).                
               Appellant's claim 1 recites "periodic assessment of the                
          signal to determine the suitability of a detected maximum or                
          minimum signal value within a part of the signal for providing              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007