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
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007