Appeal No. 1997-2585
Application 07/930,880
therefore, the recited limitation of “visible colored light”
is the same as the visible light radiation of Lillquist.
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 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.), cert. denied, 474 U.S.
828 (1985).
We note that Appellant’s claim 1 recites
a single silicon detector for both short wavelength
infrared and visible colored light electromagnetic
radiation to generate both short wavelength infrared
signals and visible colored light signals (emphasis
added).
We find that Appellant’s claim 1 includes a single
silicon detector for both short wavelength infrared and
visible colored light. Additionally, Appellant specifically
recites a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007