Ex parte LAVALLEE - Page 6

          Appeal No. 1998-1337                                                        
          Application 08/351,102                                                      

                    On pages 4 and 5 of the reply brief, Appellant                    
          argues that the only reasonable interpretation of "as" is that              
          the second encoding means encodes while the first encoding                  
          means encodes.  Appellant argues that the Examiner's                        
          interpretation of "as" as recited in claims 1 and 9 is faulty.              
          On page 2 of the reply brief, Appellant points to support for               
          the first and second encoding means operating in parallel in                
          the specification and drawings.  In particular, Appellant                   
          points us to figure 1;    page 8, lines 15 through 17; page 9,              
          lines 17 through 19; and page 13, lines 4 through 10 of the                 
          specification.  Appellant argues that when the originally                   
          filed specification is considered as a whole, it is clear that              
          one aspect of the invention includes a control means                        
          simultaneously receiving encoded image data from first and                  
          second encoding means that are operating concurrently.                      
                    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                    


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007