Appeal No. 1997-1982
Application No. 08/483,886
the entire disclosure. Although particular limitations from
the specification will not be read into the claims,(see
Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal Ltd ., 781 F.2d 861, 867, 228 USPQ
90, 93 (Fed. Cir. 1985)), it is proper to use the
specification to interpret a word or phrase in the claim. See
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849
F.2d 1430, 1433, 7 USPQ2d 1129, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1988);
Loctite, 781 F.2d at 867, 228 USPQ at 93. Reading the phrase
in light of the specification and the remainder of the claim,
the skilled artisan would conclude that "for at least one of
said send end unit and said receive end unit" merely refers to
the location of the control element and not to what unit is to
be controlled. Accordingly, appellants' argument that
Heichler relates only to optimization of the recovered signal
is not irrelevant, as suggested by the examiner (Answer, page
7).
The examiner alternatively argues (Answer, pages 7-8)
that it would have been obvious "to modify Heichler to include
an optimizing means in the send end unit because one of
ordinary skill ... would have wanted to further improve upon
the quality of communication by not only improving the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007