Appeal No. 1998-1341
Application 08/358,792
tracking stations transmit their position as they are fixed stations. On page 14, of the brief,
Appellant asserts that Reagan’s mobile stations do not intercommunicate as is claimed.
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). “[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re
Hyatt, slip 99-1182 (Fed. Cir, May 12, 2000), (citing In re Graves, 96 F.3d 1147, 1152,
36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995) and In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ
1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). We find that the scope of independent claims 14, 24, 28 and 36
includes a mobile tracking unit which determines its position, determines the bearing to the
target and broadcasts the position and bearing data. Further, we find that the scope
includes that the data is used to locate the target.
This scope is shown in the claim 14 recitation of “providing a first and a second
mobile tracking stations . . . determining the direction of origin of said radio signal relative
to the first station . . . a) determining the position of said first station . . . transmitting said
position and said direction of origin from said first station . . . subsequently triangulating
said position of said target.”
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007