Appeal No. 1998-1814 Page 11
Application No. 08/347,814
and 155, appellants assert (brief, pages 9 and 10) that
appellants’ invention combines dual wavelength modulation with
sequential demodulation, and that the references do not teach
sequential demodulation. The examiner takes the position
(answer, page 14) that the claims are silent as to sequential
demodulation.
As stated by the court in In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d
1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) “[t]he name
of the game is the claim.” Claims will be given their
broadest 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. 1985).
We agree with the examiner that the claims do not recite
sequential demodulation. The claims require first and second
demodulator means, and that a first demodulating frequency is
greater than a second demodulating frequency. As drafted,
claims 121 and 155 read on the parallel demodulation of Mantz
(‘448). Mantz (‘448) discloses (Figure 2) demodulators 46 and
48. Demodulator 46 mixes the detector signal with the
chopping frequency <ch, which has a 400 Hz frequency (col. 6,
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007