Appeal No. 1998-1471 Page 5
Application No. 08/108,510
With these in mind, we consider the scope of the claims.
“‘[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every
application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what
each claim defines is patentable. [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) (quoting Giles S. Rich,
The Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of Claims --
American Perspectives, 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright
L. 497, 499, 501 (1990)). Here, claim 25 specifies in
pertinent part the following limitations: “means for manually
shutting the receiver off, means for automatically turning on
the manually shut off receiver for receipt and storage of
cyclically transmitted wireless messages at predetermined
times ....” Similarly, claim 27 specifies in pertinent part
the following limitations: “manually shutting the receiver
off, automatically turning on the manually shut off receiver
at predetermined times for receipt and storage of cyclically
transmitted wireless messages ....” Accordingly, claims 25
and 27 each require automatically turning on a receiver that
has been manually shut off.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007