Appeal No. 1998-1105 Page 6
Application No. 08/300,599
“Claims are not interpreted in a vacuum, but are part of
and are read in light of the specification.” Slimfold Mfg.
Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116, 1 USPQ2d
1563, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing Hybritech Inc. v.
Monoclonal Anti-bodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1385, 231 USPQ
81, 94-95 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Mattison, 509 F.2d 563, 565,
184 USPQ 484, 486 (CCPA 1975)). Here, claims 1 and 4 each
specifies in pertinent part the following limitations:
a) the sending, by the transmitter, at a first
transmission rate, of the message to be transmitted
with a request for acknowledgment from the receiver,
b) when there is no acknowledgment owing to said
disturbances, the sending, by the transmitter,
at another transmission rate, of a correction
message ....
Similarly, claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 each specifies in pertinent
part the following limitations:
a) the transmission, by the transmitter, at a first
transmission rate, of the message to be
transmitted with a request for acknowledgment
from the receiver;
b) when there is no acknowledgment because of said
disturbances, the transmission, by the
transmitter, at another transmission rate, of a
correction message ....
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007