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
broadest
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007