Appeal No. 1997-2474 Page 9
Application No. 08/125,590
present invention relate to image processing ....” (Id. at
9.) Because McMillan is within the field of the inventors’
endeavor, viz., image processing, the appellants’ argument
that the reference is non-analogous art is not persuasive.
Second, the appellants argue, “Since there is no
discussion of implementations of the DCT whatsoever in
McMillan, Jr. et al., and no mention of symmetries found
therein, there is no way to make from McMillan, Jr. et al. the
present invention ....” (Appeal Br. at 9.)(emphasis added).
They add, “The desire of McMillan, Jr. et al. to so limit the
use of memory constitutes a teaching away from the elements of
the instant claims reciting ‘precomputing.’” (Id. at 10.)
The appellants err by attempting to read limitations from
the specification into the claims. “In the patentability
context, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretations. Moreover, limitations are not to be read
into the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988
F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007