Ex parte LAVALLEE - Page 7

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

          reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification,                
          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                                      


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007