Appeal No. 1998-1337
Application 08/351,102
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).
When reading Appellant's specification as a whole,
we find that the term "as" would mean "while." In particular,
we note that Appellant's figure 1 shows the first and second
encoding means connected in parallel. Furthermore, we note
that on page 8 of the specification, Appellant discloses that
the first and second encoding means operate in parallel and
provide data to control unit 180. On page 9, Appellant
discloses that the control unit selectively stores the image
data compressed by encoder 140 or encoder 170 in accordance
with the determined image type. Appellant further points out
that it is the control unit 180 that determines the image
type. Appellant discloses on page 13 that the apparatus
compresses the image data using parallel compressors and
selects the compressed image data from
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007